Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we start the business of the day, I want to mark a poignant anniversary. On 12 October 2002, exactly 20 years ago today, 202 people, including 28 Britons, were killed in the Bali bombings. These horrific bomb attacks were organised to cause maximum carnage, leaving hundreds of families and friends shocked and grieving. I know that today, 20 years since the Bali bombings, will be difficult for many people. I would like to express heartfelt condolences and best wishes from all of us here in the House of Commons to the survivors, families and friends.
I would also like to remind Members that the ballot for the election of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is currently taking place in the Aye Lobby. The ballot will be open until 2.30 pm. The side doors between the Chamber and the Aye Lobby will be locked until the ballot has been concluded.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Channel 4 Privatisation

Jeff Smith: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of Channel 4 privatisation on the television production industry in Scotland.

Alister Jack: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Cabinet colleagues and I are committed to ensuring the further success of Channel 4. The Government are determined to support the incredible TV production industry in Scotland, and we believe that in the long run the UK production industry will benefit from a sustainable Channel 4.

Jeff Smith: Channel 4 is a key commissioner for Scottish independent production companies. It spends about £20 million a year on Scottish productions, supporting about 400 jobs in Scotland. Analysis from Ernst & Young says that privatisation could result in £1 billion being lost from the UK’s nations and regions, so for the sake of Scotland’s creative economy, will the Secretary of State make representations to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to follow the evidence and keep Channel 4 in public hands?

Alister Jack: I have had discussions with the Culture Secretary and the previous Culture Secretary. The Government’s position is that we are looking again at the sale of Channel 4, and we will have further details in  due course. We want Channel 4 to flourish, and we want independent production companies to flourish and thrive, because we recognise that we live in a challenging and changing media landscape.

Freeports

Iain Stewart: What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on freeports in Scotland.

Andrew Bowie: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on when a decision will be taken on the winners of the bids for green freeports in Scotland.

Alister Jack: I have held a number of discussions with the Levelling Up Secretary and his predecessors on freeports. This Government are committed to delivering two new freeports for Scotland to boost economic growth. The UK and Scottish Governments will be making an announcement shortly.

Iain Stewart: Five high-quality bids for freeports in Scotland have been received. Only two can be successful in this round. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will work with partners in the unsuccessful three so that they can realise their ambitions through other means?

Alister Jack: Before I answer the question, I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his diligent and excellent work in the Scotland Office. He made a huge impact, and I absolutely thank him from the bottom of my heart.
In answering my hon. Friend’s question, the Government are committed to boosting economic growth in all areas of Scotland. We will use all the levers at our disposal to do so, and we will do that in partnership with the Scottish Government, as we are doing with freeports. Hopefully, that will also include investment zones—discussions are ongoing between officials—and I hope that those who are unsuccessful in their freeport bids can apply for investment zone status, which will help them to increase their economic activity, so the answer is yes. Funnily enough, I do not exclude the freeport winners from going for investment zone status, as that is not identical, and there are advantages in their becoming investment zones as well.

Andrew Bowie: Of all the five excellent bids, I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that, given the focus on a North sea revival, the importance of the North sea transition deal to our future energy security, the dynamic and pioneering spirit of business and industry in the north-east of Scotland, and the fact that we will create 30,000 new jobs in my constituency and around the north-east of Scotland, the Aberdeen and north-east freeport bid will be one that he announces as successful.

Alister Jack: I admire my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the north-east bid. He is right to be enthusiastic, as he represents that part of Scotland. It is a process, and we are following the metrics, as was done with the English freeports. It is important that we do not make a political  decision, and that we make the right decision based on the bids before us. As I say, for those that are unsuccessful, hopefully investment zones will be another route. I have not shown any preference for any bid, and it is right that we do not and do it properly according to the metrics that we set out, because we cannot leave this open to judicial review, which would lead to further delay.

Margaret Ferrier: I am glad to hear the right hon. Member say that the Government intend to consider repurposing Scottish green freeports into investment zones. What discussions have been about environmental protection concerns and the removal of EU environmental standards?

Alister Jack: There is a full prospectus explaining all that, which we agreed with the Scottish Government. We have put it out to bid. We have five bids, from Orkney down to the Forth and the Clyde, and they all understand the environmental impacts. A lot of it is about reclaiming brownfield land, which is part and parcel of the levelling-up agenda, and I think everyone understands what has to be done environmentally to reclaim brownfield sites.

Levelling-up Fund

Caroline Ansell: What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect of the levelling-up fund in Scotland.

Alister Jack: We have invested £172 million in Scotland in round 1 of the levelling-up fund, which is around 10% of the total UK funding. In March, we published a monitoring and evaluation strategy for the levelling-up fund. Further updates on the strategy will be published in due course, and results of round 2 will be announced later this year.

Caroline Ansell: That is wonderful to hear. In my beautiful constituency of Eastbourne, we are busy working to ensure that £20 million of Government levelling-up funding is energising and growing the visitor economy. [Hon. Members: “Scotland!”] My question is: how is the levelling-up fund doing the same in Scotland—the land of my forefathers—to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can capitalise on and consolidate the staycation market so much born out of the pandemic years?

Alister Jack: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Levelling-up measures are all about delivering local priorities and pride in place, which go hand in hand towards creating a sustainable tourist economy. The £150 million community ownership fund is allowing us to put cultural and heritage assets back in the hands of local people across the whole United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Pete Wishart: What would the impact have been on levelling-up projects if the Scottish Government had followed the advice of the Scottish Conservatives to give these unfunded and catastrophic tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society? Will the Secretary of State now apologise to the Scottish Government for insisting that they follow this disastrous and reckless course of action?

Alister Jack: The hon. Member is conflating two issues. The reality is that the levelling-up funds, of which there are £200 million in the current round, are being well received across Scotland. That is real devolution in practice. All local authorities are engaging with the UK Government—and guess what? They are enthusiastic when it comes to applying for money to help local projects.

Devolution Settlement

Allan Dorans: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on amending the devolution settlement with Scotland.

Deidre Brock: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on amending the devolution settlement with Scotland.

Alister Jack: The Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world and we believe that the devolution settlement strikes the right balance. We continue to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government to implement the Scotland Act 2016. This includes passing secondary legislation to deliver the extensive welfare and tax powers granted by the Act.

Allan Dorans: The vast majority of people in Scotland support the continued existence of the Scottish Government. Despite the settled will of the Scottish people for greater autonomy and self-rule, some senior Conservatives—there are Secretaries of State among them—are becoming even louder in their calls for the UK Government to claw back powers from the devolved Assemblies. Will the Secretary of State today commit before the House that the UK Government will not under any circumstances attempt to revoke powers devolved to the Scottish Government?

Alister Jack: Absolutely. In fact, since we left the European Union, we have given more powers to the Scottish Parliament. Actually, whenever asked, not a single Member of the Scottish National party has come up with one power that has been taken away. It is quite the contrary. We have given more powers and will continue to do that, because, let us be clear, we are the party that is strengthening devolution and the SNP wants to destroy devolution.

Deidre Brock: I believe that the EU forecasts that the Irish economy will grow by more than 5% in 2022, showing the real potential for growth that exists for smaller nations that are part of the EU. Meanwhile, on the back of the UK Government’s disastrous fiscal statement, mortgage payments for many Scots are rising dramatically and people will struggle to keep a roof over their heads, let alone to feed and keep themselves warm.
Today, the Office for National Statistics tells us that there was a slump of 0.3% in GDP in August in the UK, before that disastrous event. Why will the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues not accept that their fiddling with devolution while the UK economy burns will never be enough to protect the Scottish people he  supposedly represents and accept that an independence referendum has to happen so that the Scottish people can protect themselves?

Alister Jack: You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Speaker, that I think that that is absolute nonsense. This is not the time. A vast majority of Scots do not believe that now is the time for an independence referendum and that is very clear. The constitution is reserved to Westminster—that is in the process of going through the Supreme Court to be determined now. To me it is very clear that the people of Scotland want this Government to get on. The support we gave during covid, with 900,000 jobs furloughed, the support we have given to households and businesses for their energy costs and our helping to grow the Scottish economy through freeports and investment zones: that is what the people of Scotland want.

Douglas Ross: Devolution is about Scotland’s two Governments working together and we have seen the success of that with city and region growth deals and with the progress towards freeports. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that language is also really important? When the First Minister said that she “detests the Tories”, she was insulting—[Interruption.] Cheers are coming from the SNP. She is insulting hundreds of thousands of Scottish Conservative voters when she should be representing the whole of Scotland as First Minister.

Alister Jack: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Language is terribly important in politics. We saw the desperate death of David Amess and others before him, and people cannot incite people using words such as “detest”, which, as can be seen in the dictionary, is another word for hate. The irony is that the Scottish Government are bringing forward a hate Bill yet we have language such as “detest”. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call it out.

Cost of Living

Janet Daby: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Scotland.

Carol Monaghan: What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on the cost of living crisis in Scotland.

Alison Thewliss: What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on the cost of living crisis in Scotland.

Alan Brown: What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Scottish Government on the cost of living crisis in Scotland.

David Duguid: The Government fully recognise that families, households and businesses are worried about rising costs. That is why we have taken decisive action to get families and businesses through this winter and next, and we are focused on growing the economy to raise living standards for everyone.

Janet Daby: According to Citizens Advice Scotland, the cost of living crisis is the “perfect storm” that risks sweeping tens of thousands of households across Scotland into poverty, problem debt, and destitution, and nothing could be closer to the truth. Scottish Labour has a plan and is calling for an emergency cost of living Act. Will the Minister raise with Scottish Ministers what both Governments could urgently do, using all the levers at their disposal, to help individuals and families in Scotland through this terrible crisis?

David Duguid: The UK, like Europe and other countries around the world, has been forced to respond decisively to the challenges posed by high energy prices resulting from, among other things, Russia’s weaponisation of energy markets. Because of action taken by this Government, the most vulnerable households will get at least £1,200—some much more—of cost of living support this year on top of the benefit of the energy price guarantee. Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that this Government and the devolved Administrations must work together to make sure that the most vulnerable get the most support.

Carol Monaghan: According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, if the Government do not uprate benefits in line with inflation, then claimants, many of whom are working, will experience the biggest ever real-terms cut to benefits in a single year. Is it not the case that the Minister’s Government are prioritising growing the wealth of the richest while not doing enough for the vulnerable, including the elderly, in our communities in Scotland?

David Duguid: Again, it will come as no surprise that I do not totally agree with everything that an hon. Member said. The hon. Lady asked about raising benefits in line with inflation. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking at that—as she would do on an annual basis in any case—and will announce in due course the decision on benefits uprating.

Alison Thewliss: According to Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures, 15,378 people in Glasgow Central receive means-tested benefits such as universal credit, and many of them will be working in low-paid jobs. The Scottish Government have done their bit by introducing the leading Scottish child payment, but what representations has the Minister made to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to support the uprating of benefits? He has not been clear about what representations he has made for the people of Scotland.

David Duguid: The hon. Lady makes excellent points. On making representations to my ministerial colleagues, having been in this post for a very short time, I have not quite got there yet, but these discussions are happening. Under the agreed fiscal framework, the Scottish Government, through the levers that they have, will receive an estimated £340 million of additional funding as a result of just the basic rate tax cut. It is for the Scottish Government to use that additional funding as they want to, including on increased spending or tax cuts.

Alan Brown: In the policy decisions chapter of the so-called “Growth Plan”, line 9 on page 26 shows that reversing the corporation tax increase will cost £68 billion  over the next five years. Given the cost of living crisis, did the Minister and his Secretary of State argue for or against a £68 billion subsidy to the biggest, wealthiest companies in the UK?

David Duguid: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Government have committed to reversing the planned corporation tax increase from 19%, so it is staying at 19%, which will attract businesses to Scotland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. It is often missed that the Government have delivered on top of the recently announced energy price guarantee. It means that typical households receiving means-tested benefits will receive £1,200 of support; those on disability benefits on top of that will receive £1,350; low-income pensioner households will receive £1,500 of support; and low-income pensioner households who are receiving disability benefits will receive £1,650 of support. As well as that, the energy price guarantee will mean that a typical household will pay no more than £2,500 on their energy bills.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Peter Kyle: The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), has a long-standing family commitment, which is why the privilege of asking questions falls to me today.
The UK Government’s so-called mini-Budget has created a financial crisis—made in Downing Street but paid for by working people all over this country, including in Scotland. Has the Minister’s Department made an assessment of how much worse off Scottish households will be as a result of the Chancellor’s disastrous actions?

David Duguid: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place instead of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). As I said, the energy support put in place means that a typical household will not pay more than £2,500. That is on top of the additional benefits that were announced earlier this year and more recently and which will make sure that many households, including those on the lowest incomes, will actually be better off than they would have been.

Peter Kyle: The only long-term solution to this crisis is a more sustainable energy policy, which the Government have failed to deliver for 12 years. In 2017, Nicola Sturgeon announced a national energy company for Scotland. Five years on, we are in an energy crisis and that plan has been ditched, so does the Minister agree that the right way forward is through Labour’s plan for Great British Energy, a home-grown, publicly owned company run for and by the people of this country and for the interests of people in this country?

David Duguid: The hon. Member is absolutely correct to point out the Scottish Government’s commitment, made back in 2017, to have created a nationalised energy company in Scotland by now. That has not happened, and quite frankly I do not think that it should. I do not think that Labour’s plans should be implemented either.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Mhairi Black: The first mini-Budget from this Government required two Bank of England interventions just to stabilise the economy. It tanked the pound and it massively worsened the already brutal cost of living crisis that our constituents are facing. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State, as Scotland’s representative in Cabinet, confirm that any future fiscal event from this Government will neither make further cuts to the Scottish budget nor introduce further cuts to our already crippled public services?

David Duguid: On top of the already record increased block grant of £41 billion that the Scottish Government have already received, measures announced in the Chancellor’s recent fiscal statement mean hundreds of millions in extra money going to the Scottish Government. As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), it is for the Scottish Government to decide whether to spend that on tax cuts or to increase spending.

Mhairi Black: After 12 years of austerity, which has caused in excess of 300,000 deaths in the UK, this Tory Government have cost the public billions. They have given dodgy covid contracts to their pals. They are scrapping the bankers’ bonus cap. They have forced a hard Brexit on Scotland against its will. They are now helping the richest people in the country, on the backs of millions of people who are choosing between heating and eating. I ask the Minister: is it genuinely a surprise to him and his colleagues to discover why most people in Scotland detest the Tory party and its values?

David Duguid: I must say that I am disappointed that the hon. Member chooses to double down on the hate-filled language of her party leader. I repeat that the Scottish Government have received a record amount of block grant funding—£41 billion—since devolution began, and all the other measures from which people and businesses across Scotland will benefit. Those in the most vulnerable households and on the lowest incomes will particularly benefit from the measures that this Government have taken.

Domestic Energy Costs

Matt Western: If he will make a comparative assessment with Cabinet colleagues of domestic energy costs in (a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the UK.

David Duguid: The Government’s recently announced energy price guarantee will support households with their energy bills across the whole United Kingdom, including in Scotland. This decisive action will save the typical household at least £1,000 a year for the next two years.

Matt Western: May I follow up on the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) asked about the Scottish Government’s decision to abandon their plans? Will the Minister confirm what discussions he has had with his Scottish counterparts about ensuring that Scotland’s renewable potential directly benefits the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom, given that the cost to the consumer of renewable energy is so much lower?

David Duguid: As I have said, Ministers in the Scotland Office discuss such matters regularly with our colleagues in other Departments. Energy policy is reserved, as I am sure the hon. Member will understand, but we endeavour to work constructively with the Scottish Government on everything that can have an impact on the livelihoods of people and communities in Scotland, as well as businesses.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Liz Twist: One of the most critical ways of reducing domestic energy costs in Scotland is by supporting renewable energy generation and carbon reduction efforts. I have raised before at the Dispatch Box the fact that the UK Government chose to sideline the Acorn carbon capture and storage project in the north-east of Scotland. The Scottish Government have refused to provide financing either.
The Secretary of State may be interested to hear that Labour has put forward a fully costed plan to invest in Britain’s infrastructure, which includes providing the funding for the Acorn project. Will the Secretary of State encourage his Cabinet colleagues—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to start the question again, because I could not hear.

Liz Twist: I believe the Secretary of State and the Minister may have heard the first part of the question, so I will conclude by asking the Secretary of State to encourage his Cabinet colleagues to look again at how the carbon capture and storage project can be supported to enable it to get under way as a matter of urgency.

David Duguid: As the hon. Lady may be aware, the Acorn cluster looms large in my own constituency, so I have nothing but the greatest support for that project. I can also assure her, and the rest of the House, that this Government have stood firmly behind it: we have invested £41 million in the project directly, and it is also the reserve cluster in the Track-1 sequence. Track-2 sequencing for carbon capture and storage across the United Kingdom is coming soon, I am told, and I look forward to that announcement with great interest.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, let me point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Graham Stringer: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 12 October.

Elizabeth Truss: This Saturday marks the first anniversary of the senseless murder of our friend Sir David Amess. David was a superb parliamentarian, who brought colleagues across the House together on a huge range of issues. He represented the best of Parliament as a devoted champion of his constituency. Our thoughts are with his wife Julia and  his five children, as well as with the people of Southend, which now stands tall as a city in testament to David’s tireless work.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Graham Stringer: I knew Sir David, and I share the Prime Minister’s sentiments completely.
Spooking the markets, increasing the cost of borrowing and mortgages, was almost certainly an act of gross incompetence rather than malevolence, but going back on the commitment to end no-fault evictions is an act of extreme callousness. Can the Prime Minister reassure the 11 million private renters in this country that she will fulfil that commitment?

Elizabeth Truss: I can.

Julian Sturdy: During a recent visit to the children’s ward at York Hospital, I was shocked to learn that paediatric waiting time targets were the same as those for adult patients. As we know, any delay in treatments for young patients can have a damaging effect on their development and prospects. May I ask the Prime Minister to look at this as a matter of urgency?

Elizabeth Truss: I am very sorry to hear about the situation of young people at York Hospital, but I am pleased to say that this is an issue on which my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has focused in her plan for patients. We are making sure that people can access treatment as soon as possible: we are delivering record staff numbers and record levels of funding.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: May I join the Prime Minister in her comments about Sir David? She spoke for the whole House when she made those comments. I know how deeply his loss was felt on the Government Benches, and we extend our best wishes across the House at this important time.
I also want to send my heartfelt condolences to the families of all those who tragically lost their lives in Creeslough last week. Donegal is a special place for my family and me, and across the House. The people there are in all our thoughts.
This morning the Business Secretary toured the television studios arguing that the turmoil in the markets had nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s Budget. Does the Prime Minister agree with him?

Elizabeth Truss: We have taken decisive action to make sure that people are not facing energy bills of £6,000 for two years. We remember that the Opposition are only talking about six months. We have also taken decisive action to make sure that we are not facing the highest taxes for 70 years in the face of a global economic slowdown. We are making sure that we protect our economy at this very difficult time internationally. As a result of our action—this has been independently corroborated—we will see higher growth and lower inflation.

Keir Starmer: Avoiding the question, ducking responsibility, lost in denial—it is no wonder investors have no confidence in her Government. This is why it matters: a few weeks ago, Zach and Rebecca from Wolverhampton were all set to buy their first home. Then the Government’s borrowing spree sent interest rates spiralling and their mortgage offer was withdrawn. I met them last week. They are back to square one: unable to buy, devastated and sick to their back teeth with excuses and blame shifting. Does the Prime Minister understand why Zach and Rebecca are completely furious with her?

Elizabeth Truss: The fact is that when I came into office, people were facing energy bills of up to £6,000 per year—[Interruption.] Well, I am sorry; Labour Members are shouting, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is opposing the very package that we brought in with the energy price guarantee. That was the major part of the mini-Budget that we announced. He has refused to confirm whether he backs our energy price guarantee for two years, which protects families not just this winter but next winter. We are seeing interest rates rising globally—[Interruption.] They are rising globally in the face of Putin’s appalling war in Ukraine. What we are doing is helping people with lower stamp duty, helping people with their energy costs, reducing inflation with our energy package and keeping taxes low. I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a Damascene conversion last night when he backed our cut to national insurance.

Keir Starmer: The economy is in turmoil. People are really worried. This is really not the time to descend into nonsense attacks about last night. There is no point in trying to hide it; everyone can see what has happened. The Tories went on a borrowing spree, sending mortgage rates through the roof—they are skyrocketing by £500 a month—and for nearly 2 million homeowners, their fixed-rate deals are coming to an end next year. They are worried sick, and everybody in this House knows it. They will not forgive; they will not forget; and nor should they. When will the Prime Minister stop ducking responsibility, do the right thing and reverse her kamikaze Budget, which is causing so much pain?

Elizabeth Truss: Last night, the Labour party supported bringing down national insurance. Is he really—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister. I am sorry if her own party doesn’t, but I certainly do.

Elizabeth Truss: I am genuinely unclear about what—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We do not want an early bath at this stage. The rugby world cup is coming, but let us not start it too soon. Let us hear the questions and the answers.

Elizabeth Truss: I am genuinely unclear as to what the Labour party’s policy is on our energy price guarantee. It was the biggest part of our mini-Budget. Are the Opposition saying that they want to reverse it and that they want to see people facing energy bills of £6,000? Is that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying?

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister knows very well that, on this side, we voted against the national insurance rise in the first place. She voted for it, so who is doing the U-turn? Honestly.
Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to U-turn on her unfunded tax cut for the super-wealthy. This week, she is beginning to realise that she needs to extend the windfall tax, one step behind the CEO of Shell, but she is still going ahead with £18 billion of tax cuts for the richest businesses, and they did not even ask for it. She has still gift-wrapped a stamp duty cut for landlords, just as renters feel the pinch, and she is still holding out tax cuts for those who live off stocks and shares. Why does she expect working people to pick up the bill for her unfunded tax cuts for those at the top?

Elizabeth Truss: I notice the Leader of the Opposition is still not saying whether he supports our energy price guarantee. This is very relevant, because it is the biggest part of our mini-Budget. The fact is that all the Opposition have said is that people should be supported for six months. Does he think that, in March, pensioners should be facing very high energy bills? That is what will happen if he does not support our energy price guarantee.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister is not even attempting to answer the questions now. I gently remind her that the idea of freezing energy bills was a Labour idea that she took on. During her leadership contest the Prime Minister said, and I quote her exactly:
“I’m very clear I’m not planning public spending reductions.”
Is she going to stick to that?

Elizabeth Truss: Absolutely. [Interruption.] Look, we have almost £1 trillion of public spending, and we were spending £700 billion back in 2010. We will make sure that, over the medium term, the debt is falling, and we will do that not by cutting public spending but by making sure we spend public money well. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about our spending on the energy price guarantee, which he does not seem to support, but the reality is that he cannot criticise us, on the one hand, for spending money while, on the other hand, claiming we are cutting public expenditure. [Interruption.]

Keir Starmer: Conservative Members can cheer. I hope they listened very carefully to that last answer, because other people will have listened very carefully. Who voted for this? Not homeowners paying an extra £500 on their mortgage. Who voted for this? Not working people paying for tax cuts for the largest companies. Who voted for this? Not even most of the MPs sitting behind her, who know they cannot pay for tax cuts on the never-never. Does she think the public will ever forgive the Conservative party if it keeps on defending this madness and goes ahead with its kamikaze Budget?

Elizabeth Truss: What our Budget has delivered is security for families for the next two winters. It has made sure we will see higher economic growth, lower inflation and more opportunities. The way we are going to get our country growing is through more jobs, more growth and more opportunities, not through higher taxes, higher spending and his friends in the unions stopping hard-working people getting to work.

Sheryll Murray: I want to see growth and jobs in east Cornwall, and I believe an investment zone could help. Will the Prime Minister back me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) in supporting an investment zone for the Liskeard and Bodmin area?

Elizabeth Truss: I want to see more jobs, more opportunities and more homes for local people in Cornwall, which I know my hon. Friend is working towards with her colleagues. I am delighted that we are bringing forward these investment zones, which will give those opportunities to local people.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the murder of David Amess a year ago? Our thoughts and prayers are very much with Julia and his family. Of course, we also think very much of those in Creeslough, who have been caught up in the terrible tragedy there.
I would have hoped that if the Prime Minister were making public spending commitments today, she would have said that those who rely on social security benefits will get their benefits uprated in line with inflation.
When the Prime Minister last stood at the Dispatch Box, the average two-year fixed-rate mortgage stood at 4.5%. It is now at 6.5% and rising, hitting average families with an extra £450 in mortgage payments every single month, over and above what they were paying. Thirty-seven days into the job, this is literally the cost of the Prime Minister’s incompetence. It is the price households are paying, and all because of the Chancellor she chose. Will she now give up on her desperate plan to save her Chancellor’s skin by scapegoating the Governor of the Bank of England?

Elizabeth Truss: The action we have taken has meant that families in Scotland and across the UK are not facing gargantuan energy bills. What the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in Scotland could do to help us out is build the nuclear power stations that are going to help our energy security and help us get more gas out of the North sea, to help deliver on a more secure energy future for all of our people.

Ian Blackford: If the Prime Minister wants to ask us questions, we can swap places. The reality is that she is ignoring the damage of the chaos of the mini-Budget. She is worrying about saving the Chancellor’s job, but many families are now worried about not just heating their homes, but keeping their homes. The scale of this Tory crisis is frightening: 100,000 households a month are up for mortgage renewals; people cannot afford to pay an extra £4,500 a year in interest, and plenty are already falling behind. The Prime Minister and her Chancellor have completely lost control. The only things growing under this Government are mortgages, rents and bills. Is that what she really meant when she declared herself a “pro-growth” Prime Minister?

Elizabeth Truss: We have taken action on helping families to heat their homes. That has been very important, and I would love to see more support on delivering the energy security we need. Interest rates are rising globally—  that is a fact—and interest rates are a decision for the independent Bank of England. But I want to do all I can to help families across Britain. The way we are going to help them is by delivering economic growth, and by making sure we have the jobs and opportunities in Scotland and right across the UK. What independent forecasters have shown is that, following our intervention, economic growth is going to be higher than it would have been if we had not acted. That is vital for jobs, opportunities and livelihoods, and helping to make sure that people are able to put food on the table.

Angela Richardson: The Wey Navigation winds through the heart of Guildford and is a much-treasured part of our local environment. I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week that the Environment Agency will be able to increase fines on water companies for serious breaches of the rules to up to £250 million per breach. Will the Prime Minister confirm that no MP voted to discharge sewage into our waterways, and that it is beneath the Opposition parties and their activists to keep repeating that outright lie?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about our support for cleaner water. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has asked from a sedentary position what we are doing about it. The Environment Secretary has increased the fines on water companies 100 times should they discharge sewage into waterways in an illegal way. We have acted.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks made about the tragic events in Creeslough in County Donegal? Our prayers continue to be with that devastated community.
I welcome the renewed negotiations with the European Union about the Northern Ireland protocol. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the outcome of those negotiations must reflect the objectives outlined by the Government in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, and that that is the key to unlocking the door to political stability in Northern Ireland?

Elizabeth Truss: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman; we need to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That means making sure that we have free-flowing trade east-west as well as north-south, it means making sure that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from the same tax benefits as people in Great Britain, and it means resolving the issues over governance and regulation. I would prefer to achieve that through a negotiated solution with the EU, but if we are not able to do that, we cannot allow the situation to drift; we have to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

Mary Robinson: Addressing health inequalities is a key part of levelling up, so I welcome this week’s news of £50 million to fund research into health disparities. We know that poor health affects not only life expectancy but prosperity and, more widely, economic resilience and growth. Would my right hon. Friend therefore consider a future expansion of these research schemes to  other parts of the north and the Greater Manchester region, to encourage more healthcare research partnerships between our great universities and our local authorities?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this health research is vitally important. I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is looking at whether and where the scheme can be expanded, and we will be doing further commissioning rounds to look at that issue.

John McNally: Prime Minister, you have had a holiday, I think in Birmingham, where you were preaching to the choir—although a few MPs who were there appeared to be singing from a different song sheet. Prime Minister, your Government is now outrageously flirting with disaster, financially and socially. We have just heard that the increase in mortgage repayments will dwarf the rise in heating bills. How will you cope with the resultant increase in homelessness?

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not think I am responsible, but I am sure the Prime Minister will take that on board.

Elizabeth Truss: What we have done as a Government is act decisively to deal with the very severe energy crisis we are facing. [Interruption.] We are facing a severe energy crisis. We are also facing a slowdown in economic growth globally due to Putin’s war in Ukraine, and not acting is not an option.

Guy Opperman: The energy price guarantee is a key part of the growth plan, but too few businesses and households know about it, even if the Labour Party does not support it. Can I urge the Prime Minister to have a nationwide mail-out campaign to communicate what the Government are doing to assess people on reduction of energy and, more particularly, to have a reduction-of-energy campaign for public buildings, so that we do not go down the route of spending too much on consumption?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that the Energy Secretary is working on a plan to help companies and individuals use energy more efficiently. We are also working on this across Government. I was delighted to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) yesterday, and I hope we will be able to start this going in No. 10 straightaway.

Ian Lavery: During the lockdown we clapped them, and then we laid wreaths for healthcare staff who had died on the frontline. How quickly our nurses have gone from the country’s heroes to this Government’s villains—offered a derisory 72p a week pay rise and then painted as militants for daring to have the audacity to ballot for industrial action for the first time in a century. Claps do not pay the bills, and neither does a 72p pay rise. Nurses are leaving the NHS in their droves, feeling abandoned by this Government. Surely even the Prime Minister agrees that the Government have their priorities wrong when  they are uncapping the bonuses of the bankers and at the same time offering derisory pay rises to our treasured NHS staff.

Elizabeth Truss: First, may I say what a brilliant job our fantastic nurses do across the country? The figures the hon. Gentleman is quoting are simply wrong. The independent pay review body recommended a £1,400 rise on average, and that is what the Government are committed to delivering.

Natalie Elphicke: Following the loss of 27 lives last winter in the channel, the UK Government offered joint patrols to the French on the beaches. Can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that she renewed that offer to President Macron when they met and, further, that there will be no new money and no fresh agreement with the French unless they agree to joint beach patrols and joint security across the channel to bring an end to the small boats crisis for good?

Elizabeth Truss: The Home Secretary is committed to dealing with this very difficult issue of the small boats in the channel. We do need to sort it out. We are committed to legislating and to getting an agreement with the French Government. I did discuss it with President Macron last week, and the Home Secretary is following up.

Owen Thompson: This Friday, Christine Grahame MSP and I are hosting a community drop-in event on the cost of living crisis in Gorebridge. This will be a chance for local residents to meet with a range of partners to get advice and guidance on what they can do to survive the current crisis. I extend an invitation to the Prime Minister to come to this event on Friday so that my constituents can ask her directly what real-life experience means to her—so that she can address the cost rises that they are facing and apologise to them for the disastrous decisions that her Government are making.

Elizabeth Truss: I completely understand that families are struggling. That is why this Government acted within a week of coming into office to put in place the energy price guarantee so that people are not facing £6,000 bills. That is why we reversed the increase in national insurance and why we are cutting basic rate tax so that families are keeping more of their own money. We are also making sure that the most vulnerable households get an extra £1,200 of support. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will communicate that to his constituents.

Gagan Mohindra: I thank the Prime Minister for her warm words about Sir David Amess, who is sorely missed in this place.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economy and I warmly welcome the expansion of the small business threshold. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Conservative party is on the side of enterprise in its determination to unleash the full potential of our great country?

Elizabeth Truss: We in the Conservative party understand who pays our wages—it is the people who get up every day to go to work and the businesses that  are set up. Those are the people driving our economy and we will be unashamedly pro-growth, pro-business and pro-opportunity.

Rosie Cooper: My constituents were absolutely delighted that the fracking application in West Lancashire was withdrawn after a moratorium was declared. Since then, we have not seen any new scientific evidence that indicates that fracking would now be safe. Despite that, the Government have decided to reverse that moratorium, committing to granting fracking licences only in areas that have local consent. I would be grateful if the Prime Minister would reassure West Lancashire residents —my constituents—and please explain in detail how she will honour her statement that no fracking licences will be forced on communities that do not want them.

Elizabeth Truss: First, let me offer my best wishes to the hon. Lady on her appointment as chair of the Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust. I can assure her and colleagues around the House that fracking will only go ahead in areas where there is local community support.

Anthony Browne: Two weeks ago, a bomb in Afghanistan killed 35 girls and young women. They were Hazaras, from the country’s second-largest ethnic minority, who are being massacred under the Taliban. Today, outside Parliament, Hazaras from across the UK, including from my constituency, are gathering to call for international support to stop the slaughter, and we are joined by representatives of the Hazara Committee in UK. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister support the Hazaras in trying to stop the killings and arrange for her Ministers to meet their representatives?

Elizabeth Truss: What is taking place in Afghanistan is extremely concerning, I am afraid, with the reversal of women’s rights and women’s opportunities. One of the things we have done is to make sure that we are restoring the aid budget for women and girls, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be very happy to meet the group to discuss further.

Daisy Cooper: The Government’s botched Budget gave unfunded tax cuts to some of the richest companies, while across the country there are hospitals worried that their roofs might collapse at any moment: Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Frimley Park Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is in the Prime Minister’s own local area. Those are just three of a number of hospitals that together need hundreds of millions of pounds, some of them urgently. Will the Prime Minister promise that every affected hospital will be given the money it needs to fix those dangerous roofs in the next 12 months?

Elizabeth Truss: I want to correct the hon. Lady, because what we are doing is simply not putting up corporation tax. It is not a tax cut; we are just not raising corporation tax. I feel it would be wrong, in a time when we are trying to attract investment into our country and at a time of global economic slowdown, to be raising taxes, because it will bring less revenue in. The way we are going to get the money to fund our  national health service and to fund our schools is by having a strong economy, with companies investing and creating jobs.

Rebecca Pow: I fully support this Government’s growth agenda, but would the Prime Minister agree that that can be achieved while also protecting and restoring our precious nature and ecosystems and working with our farmers, so that we meet our legally binding target to restore nature by 2030? I know she understands that; she has precious chalk streams in her own constituency. Will she agree that, if we get this right, there will be more jobs, skills and opportunities, because every nation in the world depends on its natural environment?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend did a fantastic job promoting the natural environment when she was at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We are going to deliver economic growth in an environmentally friendly way. This is about improving the processes and delivering better outcomes for the environment while making sure we have a growing economy as well. Those two things go hand in hand.

Justin Madders: The Prime Minister wants us to believe that fracking will reduce our energy bills, but it was not so long ago that her Chancellor said that those calling for fracking’s return “misunderstand the situation”, saying:
“No amount of shale gas from hundreds of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price any time soon.”
I ask the Prime Minister: is the Chancellor wrong about that?

Elizabeth Truss: We are pulling every lever to improve our energy supply in Britain, whether that is the North sea and opening up more opportunity there, which those on the Opposition Front Bench are against, whether it is fracking, whether it is more renewables, which I am very supportive of, whether it is more solar panels in the right place or whether it is more nuclear power stations, which are opposed by the SNP. We are doing everything we can, because we can never again be in a situation where we are dependent on authoritarian regimes for our energy.

Miriam Cates: Over the past week, serious safeguarding failures by the children’s charity Mermaids have come to light, with revelations that the charity sent breast-flattening devices to young girls behind their parents’ backs, promoted harmful medical and surgical procedures to children and hired a trustee with links to paedophile organisations and a digital engagement manager who posted pornographic images online, including of himself dressed as a schoolgirl. For years, despite whistleblowers’ raising the alarm, Mermaids has had unfettered access to vulnerable children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has taken far too long for these concerns to be taken seriously, and does she also agree that it is high time there was a police investigation into the activities of Mermaids and its staff?

Elizabeth Truss: It is very important that under-18s are able to develop their own decision-making capabilities and are not forced into any kind of activity. On the subject of the investigation that my hon. Friend raises, of course, those matters should be raised and looked at properly.

Sarah Olney: For my Richmond Park constituents and communities across south-west London, from Wimbledon to Elmbridge, any expansion of Heathrow would be disastrous. A third runway would see over 6 million more tonnes of carbon pumped into the atmosphere every year, and 2 million households would be affected by increased noise levels. Last week, the Transport Secretary said that she supported Heathrow expansion. The Prime Minister has previously stated that she would support a fourth runway. Does she stand by her previous comments, or will she rule out Government support for the construction of a third runway at Heathrow?

Elizabeth Truss: I absolutely agree with what the Transport Secretary said. We need to make sure that industries such as the air industry become more environmentally friendly. I support the development of low-carbon technology in those sectors. That is the way that we will help to grow the economy but also serve the environment.

Virginia Crosbie: I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister is such a champion for  nuclear. When will the mission and plan for Great British Nuclear be announced? The market needs the confidence to invest in new nuclear, such as at Wylfa in my constituency of Ynys Môn, to help us to achieve net zero, for our energy security, and to get thousands of high-quality jobs.

Elizabeth Truss: I can tell my hon. Friend that Great British Nuclear will be set up this year, and it will bring forward new nuclear projects. I am delighted about her support for Wylfa and for making sure that we have nuclear power provided in Wales. I would like to see that right across the United Kingdom.

Matt Western: May I welcome the Prime Minister to her place? I am not sure how to measure a good honeymoon, but after five weeks of a crisis conceived in Downing Street—a crash in pensions, interest rates rising, mortgage market turmoil and complete financial chaos—the country has been left wanting divorce. In two recent polls, 60% of those in this country want an immediate general election. The Prime Minister claims that she is listening mode; will she give way to the public?

Elizabeth Truss: I think the last thing we need is a general election.

Lindsay Hoyle: That concludes Prime Minister’s questions.

Economic Situation

Rachel Reeves: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current economic crisis.

Chris Philp: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in Washington, having meetings with the IMF, and is—[Interruption.]—which have been—[Interruption.]—routine meetings, which have been long scheduled.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know it is the first Wednesday back; we are all excitable. Let us have a little calm, so that I can hear the Minister. Come on, Minister.

Chris Philp: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They are routine meetings that have been long scheduled, and are certainly not a cause for exuberance or over-excitement from the Opposition.
As we know, the world has faced surging energy prices since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have seen very high inflation across the western world, and we have seen a cycle of increasing interest rates across western economies as well—across many western economies. But let me reassure the House that the fundamentals of the United Kingdom’s economy remain resilient. Unemployment, at 3.5%, is the lowest it has been in my lifetime—and for the record, I was born in 1976. Economic growth last year, the calendar year 2021, was the highest of any G7 country—7.5%. Just yesterday the IMF forecast that economic growth—GDP growth—this current year in the UK would be at 3.6%—once again, for the second consecutive year, the highest of any G7 country. So our economy is in resilient condition.
But I know that many families are worried about the challenges we face, and that is why, just a few weeks ago—two or three weeks ago—we introduced the energy price guarantee. Families were genuinely fearful that they might face this winter energy bills of three, four, five, six or even seven thousand pounds per year, but that energy price guarantee will ensure that the average household sees energy prices no higher than £2,500 on average—not for six months, like the Labour plan, but for two years.
We also introduced a growth plan to get our economy growing, to see wages sustainably rising, to see good jobs created and to create a sustainable tax base to fund our public services. This Government have a growth plan; the Opposition have no plan.
We intend to do this in a way that is fiscally responsible, and that is why—[Interruption.]—and that is why, on 31 October, in less than three weeks’ time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out the medium-term fiscal plan, explaining to the House exactly how he will do that, and how we will continue the UK’s track record of having the highest growth in the G7, not just last year but this year as well.

Rachel Reeves: People are facing insecurity, instability and deep anxiety and they deserve answers. Conservative economic policy has caused mayhem with financial markets, pushed up mortgage costs and put pension  funds in peril, and it has wiped £300 billion off the UK’s stock and bond markets—all directly caused by the choices of this Government. The mini-Budget, just 19 days ago, was a bonfire made up of unfunded tax cuts, excessive borrowing and repeated undermining of economic institutions. It was built and then set ablaze by a Conservative party totally out of control—not “disrupters” but pyromaniacs. And that fire has now spread. Yet Government deny all responsibility.
So will the Minister tell the House, what guarantees will the Government give that the currency slide will stop, and that people’s pensions are safe? How do they expect people to pay £500 more a month, on average, on their mortgages? How many more repossessions of family homes will there be if the Government do not change course? How much more are the Government spending on debt interest because of higher borrowing costs?
While Ministers desperately try to blame global conditions, why is it that no other central bank in the world has had to step in three times in less than three weeks to protect financial stability?
The country now faces a very serious situation. Ahead of the ending of the Bank of England’s emergency operations this Friday, what action will the Government take to ensure that their Budget does not have further consequences for financial stability, or for people’s pensions?
This is a Tory crisis made in Downing Street, but it is ordinary working people who are paying the price. It can be resolved only when the Conservatives put aside their pride and reverse this catastrophic mini-Budget, and they must do so now.

Chris Philp: The shadow Chancellor calls for a reversal of the growth plan, yet at the first opportunity—last night—the Labour party voted for it. She asks about mortgage rates, so let me point out to her that mortgage rates around the world have been on an upward trajectory all year. In fact, if we compare base rates in the United Kingdom with those in the United States, we see that in both countries, as she will be aware, the base rate started this year at 0.25%. In the UK the base rate is currently 2.25%, and in the US it is 3.25%, a full percentage point higher.
The shadow Chancellor referenced borrowing costs. I am sure she is aware that two-year Government bond yields are about the same in the US as they are in the UK—US bond yields have been going up over the course of this year as well. She referenced the currency: the dollar has shown strength against a basket of currencies throughout this calendar year. If she looks at the dollar strengthening against the euro, she will see that it strengthened about 15% this calendar year, and strengthened about 15% against sterling—very similar figures.
The shadow Chancellor also asked about the cost of living. We are very mindful of that, which is why we have introduced a £37 billion package to help people, disproportionately targeted at those on lower incomes, so that people on the lowest third of incomes receive £1,200. It is why we introduced the energy price guarantee on our second or third day in office, ensuring that people do not pay, on average, more than £2,500, instead of facing bills of £5,000 or £6,000—and not for six months, as the Labour party offered, but for two years. It is why the national minimum wage was increased by a large amount last April. It is why the national insurance  threshold was increased to £12,500 in July, so people on lower incomes now pay virtually no national insurance or income tax. That is the package of measures that this Government have introduced, because we stand on the side of working people and have taken the steps needed to support them.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was quite right to bring forward the date for the medium-term fiscal plan and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. He now has, of course, a huge challenge in landing those plans in order to reassure the markets. He has to get the fiscal rules right and come forward with spending restraint and revenue raisers that are politically deliverable. Given the huge challenges, there are many—myself included—who believe it is quite possible that he will simply have to come forward with a further rowing back on the tax announcements he made on 23 September. Can my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary confirm that that possibility is still on the table?

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for his counsel, which the Chancellor always listens to very carefully. The Chair of the Select Committee, along with others, suggested publicly that the date for the medium-term fiscal plan should be brought forward, and the Chancellor listened to him and responded by bringing the date forward from 23 November to 31 October.
There are no plans to reverse any of the tax measures announced in the growth plan. There is, I think, a measure of consensus—indeed, the Labour party voted only last night for the reduction in national insurance. We want to ensure that the UK is a competitive jurisdiction that companies and high-potential individuals who are internationally mobile choose to come to, to locate and grow. However, as the Select Committee Chair says, we of course need to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, to ensure that debt over GDP falls in the medium term. The plan will lay out to the House in detail exactly how that will be achieved, scored by the OBR, on 31 October.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss.

Alison Thewliss: The Minister talks about the IMF, but not about its criticism yesterday or the pathetic growth it has projected for next year of just 0.3%—funny that.
The Treasury Committee took evidence this morning from a range of economists, all of whom echoed the concerns of the public about the chaos that this shambolic UK Tory Government have created. I am not sure whether the Minister considers Deutsche Bank as part of his anti-growth coalition, but its chief economist, Sanjay Raja, was very clear this morning that the UK has particular characteristics that are making this crisis worse. He said, “you’ve got a sidelined fiscal watchdog, you’ve got the lack of a medium-term fiscal plan, one of  the largest unfunded tax cuts and package of measures since the early 1970s, and it’s sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
This is chaos that the Minister and his colleagues have deliberately created, and it is impacting people and businesses across these islands, so I ask him: will he bring more money to the devolved institutions to help them tackle the chaos that he and his colleagues have created? Will he commit to uprating benefits by inflation and giving more support to those in the asylum system and those on “no recourse to public funds”? Will he bring certainty to businesses that do not yet know what will happen at the end of the six-month reprieve, because those bills have not gone away?
The Glasgow Centre for Population Health published some research that attributed about 330,000 excess deaths since 2010 to austerity—the Tory austerity by the Minister and his colleagues over the past 12 years—so will he cancel any further cuts, because they cost Scotland and our neighbours far more than we can ever afford? Scotland did not want this, did not vote for this and cannot trust in the financial stability of the UK, never mind this Tory Government.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, but can I just say that she knows the rules give her one minute, not one minute and 45 seconds or two minutes? Please, let us stick to the rules of the House.

Chris Philp: The Scottish Government are of course receiving record levels of funding, and that will continue. The hon. Member asked about excess deaths. Well, I think the drug death record of the nationalist Government is, frankly, pretty terrible. She asked about the uprating to welfare. There is a statutory process that happens every year—every autumn—and that decision has not been taken. It will happen in the normal way, as it has been done for every year.
The hon. Member referenced the IMF’s growth forecast for next year. I have already pointed out that last year we had the highest growth in the G7 and this year we have the highest growth in the G7. If we take the three years together—last year, this year and next year—we will find that the UK, at 11.7% over those three years, still has the highest growth of any G7 country.
The hon. Member asked about institutions. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have the highest regard for the OBR and the Bank of England. They are meeting both of those institutions regularly. She referenced the growth plan. Having a competitive tax system, supply-side reforms to unleash the productive potential of our economy and making our energy market function properly once again are essential prerequisites for growth, and I am proud that it is this Government who are promoting them.

Andrea Leadsom: I am disappointed at the shadow Chancellor, who is a very good economist. She is accusing the Government of causing problems for people’s mortgage rates, but my right hon. Friend will agree with me, I am sure, that one of the worst things that can hit any economy is a wage-price spiral as a result of huge inflation. Can he confirm to the House that the action the Government have taken to provide support to the  economy and to provide this huge input in relation to energy prices will bring down headline inflation, and specifically make mortgage rates better than they would have been otherwise, which is totally the opposite of what the shadow Chancellor is saying?

Chris Philp: My right hon. Friend, who of course has a very distinguished professional track record in financial services, is absolutely right. A range of independent forecasters have confirmed that the energy price guarantee will not only protect our constituents from high prices, but lower inflation by about 5% compared with where it would otherwise have been—a vital intervention. While we are on the subject of inflation, it is worth keeping in mind that inflation in many countries in continental Europe is considerably higher than it is in the United Kingdom. For example, in Germany it is 10.9% and in Holland it is 14%.

Meg Hillier: The Minister has made great play of supporting people with their energy bills, but businesses only get support until March. The Government also make great play of creating growth. Many of the businesses in my constituency, particularly hospitality businesses, with a guarantee on their energy bills only until March, are making decisions in the coming weeks about whether they will be able to stay open and continue to be employers. How does that help growth, and will he give them some guarantee from March onwards?

Chris Philp: The hon. Lady raises questions about timeframes. Of course, the Labour proposal was only for six months for consumers and businesses, and I did not hear her criticising that. The consumer offer is for 24 months—for two years. In relation to businesses, she is quite that the business scheme is for six months, but the Government made a commitment back in September that within three months of September—so within two months of now—further plans would be brought forward to explain to businesses, charities and, indeed, the public sector how they will be handled after March next year. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will announce that to the House in the coming weeks.

Andrew Selous: Growing our tax revenues in a way that is sustainable in every sense of that word is clearly massively important to pay for all the things we deeply care about, but will my right hon. Friend reassure us that he does get the significance of Government borrowing costs and that he will make sure that His Majesty’s Government do nothing that pushes those up unnecessarily high compared with the United States and Germany?

Chris Philp: Yes, my hon. Friend is making a very important and very reasonable point. I have said this already, but he mentions comparisons with other countries, and our two-year bond yield is about the same as that of the United States at the moment. However, we are mindful of the need to ensure reasonable borrowing costs, which of course means financial responsibility. Our debt-to-GDP ratio today is the second lowest in the G7. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be setting out in under three weeks’ time—on 31 October—precisely how he will be delivering fiscal stability and fiscal   responsibility in the years ahead, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, when he hears that statement, will be reassured and comforted by it.

Emma Hardy: Earlier today, the Treasury Committee was given evidence that was incredibly sobering. All five of the economic specialists agreed that the UK’s Budget has contributed—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) come back and listen to another question? He should not just dash out.

Emma Hardy: As I was saying, earlier today we on the Treasury Committee heard evidence in which all five economists agreed that the UK’s Budget has contributed to the current economic turmoil. With the Prime Minister earlier stating that there were going to be no budget cuts, and further to the point from the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), does the Minister agree with Mohamed El-Erian, the chief economic adviser to Allianz, who said yesterday:
“I see no alternative but the government saying we will not cut taxes now”?

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have already set out how there have been global trends over the past six or nine months, with higher energy prices, higher inflation and a cycle of increasing interest rates around the globe. In particular, I set out how the monetary tightening in the United States, at 300 basis points over the past nine or 10 months, is one and a half times higher than the fiscal tightening in the United Kingdom, which has been 200 basis points over the same period.
In relation to the hon. Lady’s questions about balancing the books over the medium term, the medium-term fiscal plan will set that out. We do intend to control public spending—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, just listen to the answer—for example, to stick within the spending review 2021 spending limits. I would point out to the House that those SR21 spending limits do see real-terms increases over the three years, but we are going to be sticking with iron discipline to those spending limits, not increasing them, and we will also show spending restraint in the years ahead. However, showing spending restraint is different from real-terms cuts.

James Cartlidge: It is very welcome that, a few minutes ago, the Chief Secretary said that the effect of the statement on 31 October will be to show that the Chancellor is 100% committed to fiscal responsibility. That is very welcome to colleagues on all sides, I think, but can he confirm that that means all the previous unfunded tax cuts will now be funded in that statement?

Chris Philp: What the statement will set out in the round is how we will get debt as a proportion of GDP falling in the medium term. That is the critical metric, and that is what the medium-term fiscal plan will deliver.

Angela Eagle: Can I just offer the Chief Secretary to the Treasury some gentle advice? If he refuses to accept that the fiscal event on 23 September has had any effect on what has happened in the markets  since, that will not be reassuring for the markets. He needs to stop being in denial and admit that serious mistakes were made.
The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions that there would be no public spending cuts, yet we know that, as a result of the fiscal event and the unfunded tax cuts, there is a £60 billion gap between expenditure and the money coming in. If there are no public spending cuts, that leaves only the reversal of the tax cuts to balance the books, does it not?

Chris Philp: I have explained in response to an earlier question that spending restraint is not the same as real-terms cuts. We do not plan real-terms cuts, but we do plan iron discipline when it comes to spending restraint. The answers to the hon. Lady’s questions will be set out in full at the fiscal statement, which will be accompanied by a full Office for Budget Responsibility scoring and a set of OBR forecasts. That is when all those questions will be answered very clearly.

Bim Afolami: The intervention of the Bank of England in both the gilt market and the corporate bond market has alarmed many in recent days. I would be interested in the view of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Treasury’s assessment of the cost to the Treasury and the fiscal position following the interventions by the Bank of England in those markets.

Chris Philp: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It obviously depends on the prices at which the Bank and England buys and sells bonds or gilts in the market. It is worth observing that so far it has purchased considerably less by value of gilts than the limits that were set out originally. The volume of gilts that it has on its balance sheet is much less than the limits. On his question about fiscal cost, if there is any fiscal cost, that will depend entirely on market prices.

Siobhain McDonagh: Two days before the Budget, a young constituent of mine hoped to buy her home through shared ownership. She was offered a mortgage at 4.28% interest by the Halifax. A day after the statement, the offer was withdrawn and a two-year fixed-rate deal has rocketed to 6.9%—that is £150 a month more overnight because of the Government’s unfunded giveaways to people on over 150 grand a year. What is the Minister’s advice to my constituent? Should she take the deal, or does he agree with the panel of experts at the Treasury Committee this morning that she should not go near it, because house prices are about to plummet?

Chris Philp: I am obviously not going to offer individual financial advice to constituents. What I would say is that there are about 2,300 mortgage products currently on the market. We are keen as a Government to help first-time buyers, particularly younger ones in their 20s and 30s, which is why stamp duty is being cut for cheaper purchases. The stamp duty threshold for first-buyers has been raised, from memory, to £425,000, which particularly helps with putting together a deposit, which cannot be mortgage-funded. In addition, we want to help people with the broader cost of living pressures,  which makes it easier to find money to fund mortgages. That is what the energy price guarantee is designed to do, and it is what lower tax rates in general are designed to do, including the tax reductions that the Labour party voted for yesterday. It is what the cost of living package is designed to do—the £37 billion. By helping with the cost of living in general, we are obviously making mortgage costs a little easier to meet.

Alun Cairns: Yesterday, the International Monetary Fund underlined the position of the UK economy as the fastest growing in the G7. Despite the noises off, it further stated that the recent fiscal changes would add further to growth projections. That is in addition to the record low unemployment data that has been highlighted this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further changes need to be made in terms of supply-side reforms, which will continue the momentum of a growing economy, resulting in real jobs in my constituency and across the country?

Chris Philp: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning the international comparisons again. The unemployment figure in the UK is 3.5%—inexplicably, Opposition Members have not asked about that—which is the lowest in my lifetime and compares favourably with that in France, where it is more than double, at 7.3%, and Italy, where it is 7.8%. Even in Canada, it is 5.2%, so our unemployment figures compare favourably internationally. As for the growth figures he asked about, if the three years are taken together, the figure is 11.7%, which heads the G7. That is nearly four times higher than Germany, at 3.9%, over double the figure for Japan, at 5.1%, and higher than the figures for France, Italy, Canada and the USA.
My right hon. Friend asked about supply-side reforms to help his constituents. He will hear a lot more about them in the coming weeks, both directly from Secretaries of State and from the Chancellor in the medium-term fiscal plan, to explain how we will get regulatory burdens off the back of businesses to help them to grow and create the jobs for his constituents that he rightly wants to see.

Rushanara Ali: The mini-Budget fiasco has caused a material risk to the UK’s financial stability, and the Bank of England has said that $1 trillion could have been erased from UK pension fund investments if it had not stepped in after the mini-Budget turmoil. So the Minister needs to heed the advice of the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and others across the House, and junk the tax cuts in the Budget. They are unfunded and they are creating chaos in the markets. We need to restore confidence so that our constituents do not suffer. The Minister needs to stop being arrogant and take heed, listen to the expertise and take action.

Chris Philp: If the hon. Lady objects so much to tax reductions, why did she vote for them yesterday?

Henry Smith: Yesterday, I spoke with business leaders in my Crawley constituency. They welcomed both the near record low unemployment levels and the International Monetary Fund outlook of 3.6% growth. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that that is a direct consequence of the policies that the Government are enacting?

Chris Philp: Yes, I do. The leading growth in the G7 and the lowest unemployment figures in my lifetime are testament to the sagacity of the Government’s economic policies.

Sarah Olney: Today is another day when the Government’s mismanagement of the economy is causing market turmoil, putting thousands of pensioners and mortgage holders at risk. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England told pension funds to “sort it out” after announcing that the Bank’s emergency bond-buying scheme would close in two days. The Government have 48 hours to save pension funds. Will they call the Chancellor back from Washington, hold an emergency Cabinet meeting and deal with the pension crisis?

Chris Philp: The Chancellor is in extremely regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, which, with its various agencies, has responsibility for systemic financial stability. We are working closely with it, and we have complete confidence in the Bank’s management of this process.

Robert Largan: The Conservative party stands for low taxes, but also for fiscal responsibility and sound money. Given that the Prime Minister has just said that there will not be public sector spending cuts, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government are considering deferring any of the tax measures recently announced by the Chancellor?

Chris Philp: We do not plan to defer the tax measures, because we think that having an internationally competitive tax system is important, as it will help to encourage businesses and successful individuals to locate here in the United Kingdom, rather than anywhere else. I used to be technology Minister, and tech businesses can choose whether they locate here, in New York, San Francisco, Singapore, South Korea or anywhere else in the world. We want them to choose the United Kingdom, which is why competitive tax rates and the right regulatory environment are important.

Tobias Ellwood: Britain has embraced globalisation arguably more than other nations over the past couple of decades. About half of our GDP is subject to international headwinds, but the world is getting more dangerous, not less. The Minister mentioned Ukraine. May I suggest that any future fiscal statement is run by the National Security Council for comment and perhaps recommendations, which might include organising a United Nations safe haven around the port of Odesa, so that the grain ships can get out, helping to reduce the price of food and inflation in this country?

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion about Odesa. I know that he is an expert in military matters and matters of international diplomacy, and that he has been to Ukraine in the past 12 months. I will pass his suggestion on to my colleagues.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not think that Ministers appreciate the gravity or urgency of the situation. We have a Prime Minister who committed to no spending cuts a few minutes ago, a Government still committed to tens of billions of pounds of unfunded tax cuts and  the Bank of England withdrawing its special support on Friday. What are the Government doing to avoid a market crash this Friday?

Chris Philp: The reason that, on the second day of the new Government’s term in office, we brought forward the energy price guarantee was to protect consumers and in effect lower inflation by 5% compared with where it would otherwise be. We legislated at pace yesterday to alleviate the burden of the national insurance increase, which Opposition Members enthusiastically voted for. In terms of markets, as I said, we are in regular contact with the Bank of England and have complete confidence in its ability to manage systemic financial stability.

Marco Longhi: The funds made available by the Bank of England to purchase gilts were described by the shadow Chancellor as taxpayers’ money. I find that confusing. My understanding—I am not an economist—is that those funds are not taxpayers’ money and that, in fact, the Bank of England may even make a profit from the actions that it takes on the markets. Different people will have different views about whether the Bank of England’s intervention is appropriate action, but does the Chief Secretary agree that it is completely wrong for the shadow Chancellor to describe those funds as taxpayers’ money?

Chris Philp: It is not taxpayers’ money in the sense that the phrase suggests. There is a fiscal indemnity so that any profit or loss will end up flowing back to the Exchequer, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), whether that is crystallised depends on market prices. I point out that the volume of gilts so far purchased is considerably less than the limits that were set out.

Sammy Wilson: Covid supply-side disruption and the war in Ukraine have obviously added to inflation, as has monetary policy in the United States and our own high levels of borrowing, added to the rate of interest here in the UK. That has put real pressure on households across the United Kingdom. Despite the fact that the Government have responded by putting more money in people’s pockets through tax cuts and help with electricity bills, there is real public concern about the stability of our economy. Does the Chief Secretary accept that that is partly due to poor political decisions such as reducing the top rate of taxation, bad communication of his own strategy, open warfare on his own Benches and some of the careless remarks that we saw yesterday from the Governor of the Bank of England?

Chris Philp: I think the Prime Minister said a couple of weeks ago that, with hindsight, some of the pitch rolling or preparation could have been better handled, but I think that the package of measures is in the interests of the country. In addressing the cost of living pressures that the right hon. Gentleman referred to, we are protecting our fellow citizens, our constituents, from what could have been £5,000, £6,000 or even £7,000 annual energy bills. That is important. We are alleviating the burden of taxation at what is a difficult time. We are making sure that the households most in need of assistance get additional assistance, amounting to £1,200 a year for the one third of households on  lower incomes. All those are measures designed to protect our constituents and I am sure that he will join me in welcoming them.

Robert Halfon: Of course, I welcome the energy intervention and help for the lower paid. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as it is important to grow the economy, it is important to grow society and that, if we believe in trickle-down theory, we should also have trickle-up economics? By that, I mean that we need to invest in education and skills. Will he confirm that education spending will increase in real terms and incorporate rises in wages—whatever they may finally be—for the teachers, support staff and many other people working in education?

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As Chairman of the Education Committee, he is a tireless campaigner for education and skills. I agree that the purpose of economic growth is to grow all parts of the economy, to help people across the entire income spectrum—rich and poor alike—and to ensure that the burden of taxation on those people is as light as it can be. That is why we have increased the minimum wage by such a large amount—from £5.93 an hour when Labour left office to £9.50 an hour today—and why we have lifted so many people on lower incomes completely out of taxation through increasing the income tax and national insurance thresholds to £12,570. All that disproportionately helps people on lower incomes.
We are seized of the importance of ensuring that education is properly funded. It is an investment in our country’s future and our children’s future, and I assure my right hon. Friend that that is very much at the front of our minds as we think about the fiscal plan.

Richard Burgon: Like many others, I have listened with disbelief to much of what the Chief Secretary has said. While we have been in the Chamber, the Bank of England has again linked the economic turmoil to the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget. Will he explain to us all and to the public why he is right and the Bank of England is wrong?

Chris Philp: As I have explained before, we are in a global cycle of interest rate increases and there has been global dollar strength. We have taken action in the energy intervention and in the growth plan to protect our constituents, get our economy growing and build on our record as the fastest growing G7 economy last year, this year and over the three-year period as a whole.

Alexander Stafford: The whole world is facing a global inflation crisis, and the US, Germany and other countries are facing a worse situation. That is why I believe that the best way to deal with the situation is to get more people into better-quality jobs. I have already hosted two job fairs in Rother Valley and will have another one Friday week at Wales High School. I am pleased to see that 680 more people are in work this year than last year, and 40 more people are in work than were last month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to get people into good-quality paying jobs and that the Government always stand by working people?

Chris Philp: Absolutely. I completely agree with my hon. Friend, whose work on jobs fairs is extremely commendable. The way out of poverty and to create prosperity is to get people into good jobs and see rising wages. That is how we will combat poverty. That is why it is so welcome that unemployment is at a 48-year low.

Catherine McKinnell: With the greatest respect, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not seem to be inhabiting the same planet as the rest of us. It is clear to anyone that the Government’s half-baked mini-Budget, sidelining of the Office for Budget Responsibility and lack of authority have caused chaos in the markets, and households are already paying the price. Should the Government not just accept that they could do something in the national interest to change that by reversing their disastrous mini-Budget that has sent us into chaos and calling a general election now so that the country can decide how they want to get out of this crisis?

Chris Philp: The hon. Member calls for a reversal of the growth plan, yet she voted in favour of its largest measure just last night. She talks about sidelining the OBR, yet it will be fully scoring the medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October. The right response is to protect our constituents from rising energy prices, and we did that on our second or third day in office. The right response is to get our economy growing, and that is what the growth plan will do.

Imran Hussain: Today, the Chief Secretary has made much mention of spending and pay restraint. During the cost of living crisis, the Government have repeatedly told workers that they must accept pay restraint to keep inflation in check while plotting to make further swingeing cuts to public services. Why do the pay restraint and cuts not apply to bankers, too? Is this not the same old Tory ideology of austerity for the oppressed many and luxury for the privileged few?

Chris Philp: If I may respectfully say so, that is nonsense. The tax reductions, including those that the hon. Gentleman voted for last night, apply to everybody in work earning more than £12,570 a year. The national insurance cut and the cut to the basic rate of income tax are tax cuts for everybody, rich and poor alike. The increases in the threshold disproportionately benefit people on lower incomes, and the people on the very lowest incomes now do not pay any national insurance or tax at all. Again, the significant increases that we have seen in the national minimum wage from £5.93 an hour under Labour to £9.50 an hour now most benefit people on low incomes. The Government stand on the side of people on lower wages but doing the right thing by working.

Janet Daby: I thank the Minister for his attempts to reassure the UK economy, even though they are simply not working. Does the Minister agree with the former chief adviser to the Bank of England, who said that because of this Budget we can “say goodbye to growth”?

Chris Philp: Respectfully, no, I do not agree.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has commented on reports that the Government plan to increase benefits only in line with earnings instead of CPI September inflation, stating that this would amount to the biggest
“permanent deliberate real-terms cut to the basic rate of benefits”
ever made in a single year. Can the Chief Secretary assure my frightened constituents today that, first, these reports are not true and, secondly, that he will uprate benefits in line with CPI inflation in September?

Chris Philp: I have already explained, as I think I said yesterday, that there is a statutory process that happens every single year when these decisions get taken. No decision has been taken on the question yet; indeed, the September CPI figure, which is relevant, has not even been published yet. When the decisions are taken, Ministers will of course have regard to the cost of living pressures and high inflation that we and many other countries are experiencing, although of course the energy intervention will make that inflation lower than it would otherwise be. We also, of course, must pay due regard to hard-working taxpayers who ultimately have to pay the benefit bills, and we will take all of that into account when we make the decisions.

David Linden: Following the Government’s pretty disastrous mini-Budget, the hedge fund manager and Tory donor Crispin Odey is said to have made millions from shorting the pound. It has also been suggested that the Chancellor met Crispin Odey for lunch in the weeks running up to the mini-Budget. Is that true and, if so, what did they discuss?

Chris Philp: I am afraid that I have no idea who the Chancellor met. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman writes to the Chancellor he will set that out, but I do not know.

Alison McGovern: I would like to ask the Chief Secretary about unemployment. How can he possibly crow about unemployment when there are fewer people in work than before the pandemic and when rates of inactivity because of long-term sickness are through the roof?

Chris Philp: I think having the lowest unemployment in my lifetime and having lower unemployment than comparable countries such as France and Italy is something that we can be proud of as a country. Of course, we are committed to working with people who have long-term sickness, working through the NHS and with work coaches at the Department for Work and Pensions to find ways to enable them to return to the workforce. Of course we are going to work with them, but ultimately having the lowest unemployment rate in my lifetime is something we should be proud of.

Kevan Jones: Listening to the Minister, I wonder what colour the sky is in his world. He talks about the energy price guarantee protecting families from energy bills of up to £6,000 a year, but as a direct result of the Government’s mini-Budget families in my North Durham constituency now face a mortgage increase of £6,000 a year not just this year but in future years as well. He can blame international markets when  it comes to energy, but is he actually going to admit that the mini-Budget has led to those families paying £6,000 a year extra, if not more in some cases, and what is his advice to them?

Chris Philp: I have explained already that there is a global upswing in interest rates—

Kevan Jones: No!

Chris Philp: The right hon. Gentleman can say no and not want to hear it, but I will just tell him again. In the United States, in the last nine months, there has been a 3% increase in the federal reserve base rate. In that same period, the Bank of England base rate increase has been only 2%. It has gone up by one and half times more in the United States compared with the United Kingdom. We do understand that there are cost of living pressures and that is why we have stepped in with the energy price guarantee to protect families in his constituency and mine from the £5,000 or £6,000 bills that they would otherwise have faced. That is why we are alleviating the tax burden on their shoulders and why we will ensure that the economy grows.

Ben Lake: A few weeks ago, the Welsh Government warned that they face a shortfall of some £4 billion to their three-year funding settlement as a result of rising inflation. Will the Minister confirm that the Treasury will consider, in the statement at the end of the month, providing additional funding support to help mitigate the impact of inflation on the budget for public services in Wales?

Chris Philp: Public expenditure both in Wales and across the United Kingdom stands at record levels. It has never been higher. In relation to extra funding, we are going to have iron discipline when it comes to public spending so the spending plan set out at the comprehensive spending review 2021, covering this current financial year and the next two, contains the limits we are going to stick to with discipline because it is important that we make the numbers add up.

John Cryer: A few minutes ago, in answer to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), the Chief Secretary said that the costs to the Treasury of the Bank of England’s intervention was not known because it depends on pricing, which I would imagine is fairly blindingly obvious even to him. Does that mean that the Treasury has made no assessment of that cost? If they have, what is it?

Chris Philp: It depends on market prices, as I say. Lacking any clairvoyance about where prices may move in the future, it is not possible to make an assessment not knowing where prices will be in a fast-moving market. I repeat that the volume of gilt purchases by the Bank of England have so far been a great deal below the ceiling that was set out.

Holly Lynch: The Resolution Foundation’s chief exec, Torsten Bell, told the Treasury Committee this morning, “This is what happens when you are not paying attention.” He said that the Government’s proposals would not have been a good idea at any time but, “You definitely shouldn’t be doing it in the current climate.” Our constituents need the  Government to pay attention. Where is the plan to stabilise the economy now and stem the ongoing damage the mini-Budget continues to cause?

Chris Philp: The growth plan protected the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine from what could have been £6,000 or £7,000 energy bills this winter. Frankly, I think they will welcome that. The growth plan will lay the foundations to continue the G7-leading growth we experienced last year and this.

Chi Onwurah: I would like to dare the Minister to come to Newcastle and explain to my constituents, who are worried about their mortgage payments, their pensions, their benefits payments, their public services, their businesses and the cost of their supermarket shop, that this Government are fiscally responsible. They would laugh in his face, which is what the markets are doing. Why cannot he accept that the only way to address this crisis, made in Downing Street, is to withdrawal the fiscal mini-Budget and put in place something credible, costed and competent?

Chris Philp: Once again, the hon. Lady calls for the withdrawal of the growth plan, yet she voted last night for the biggest measure contained in it. I would be quite happy to explain to anyone, whether in Newcastle, in her constituency, or in Croydon, south London, in mine, that we are protecting people from energy price rises, that we have plans to keep our record growth levels going, that we are cutting taxes on working people and that we have a plan to get the economy going. I would be happy to go anywhere in the country and explain that.

Paulette Hamilton: Why does the Chief Secretary think that the Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman said that the mini-Budget was “stupid and cruel”? I know that that is how my constituents in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale think.

Chris Philp: I imagine that constituents in the hon. Lady’s constituency, as much as in mine, are pleased that they will not face energy bills of £6,000 or £7,000 this winter, which the growth plan delivered on. I do not agree with the analysis she read out from Mr Krugman, or Dr Krugman—[Interruption.] Professor Krugman; I am happy to stand corrected. This growth plan will ensure that we continue with our G7-leading levels of growth.

Barry Gardiner: The £60 billion of borrowing for the energy guarantee is to paid back by bill payers, not the oil and gas producers who are making record profits on the back of the public’s misery. That is not fair. Will the Minister consider raising not a temporary windfall tax but the basic tax rate for oil and gas producers, which in the UK is the lowest in the entire world? If he raised it even to the global average, he would raise an addition £13.4 billion every single year.

Chris Philp: I will make a couple of points. Extraction companies already pay about double the rate of corporation tax that other companies pay. In addition, we have imposed the energy profits levy, through which the rate of taxation on their profits increases to 65%. That is a  pretty significant rate of tax, even by Labour party standards, and it will raise about £23 billion over the relevant three-year period. The hon. Member will also have seen the announcement from my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary yesterday on ensuring that renewable companies provide energy to our constituents at reasonable prices. The suggestion that no contribution is being made by the energy sector in the circumstances is, frankly, not accurate.

Chris Stephens: The Minister quoted IMF analysis but curiously not the part where it warns that rising prices will be worse in the UK, noting that the Government’s tax cuts will “complicate the fight” against soaring prices, and where it expects higher prices to last longer in the UK than elsewhere. What is his analysis in relation to food prices and tackling food poverty in the next two years?

Chris Philp: The energy intervention will make sure that inflation in this country is about 5% lower than it otherwise would be. That is not a Government forecast, but the consensus of independent forecasters. Also, the inflation rate in the United Kingdom is lower than in some other countries, including Germany and Holland.

Derek Twigg: No matter what the Minister has said today, the sums do not add up—that is a fact. The Government have lost control of the situation and shown a level of incompetence that has rarely been seen in British politics. As a result, we have seen increased anxiety and even terror about the cost of living and energy bills, as well as mortgages. On pensions, can the Minister give an absolute guarantee and assurance that people do not need to worry about the future of their pensions?

Chris Philp: If the hon. Member is asking about the state pension, the Prime Minister has been clear that we stand by the triple lock. If he is asking about the private pension system, yes, I have complete confidence in the Bank of England’s responsibilities around financial stability. On his first comment, I think that having the lowest unemployment rate for 48 years and the highest economic growth in the G7 is something we should all be happy about.

Tonia Antoniazzi: As well as mortgage costs, the cost of lending to businesses is going up. UK Finance said that small businesses have £240 billion in outstanding debt. What assessment have the Chancellor and his Department made of the impact that the rise in borrowing costs will have on businesses’ ability to invest, and what will the Minister do about it?

Chris Philp: We are very mindful of the impact that rising global interest rates have on businesses. That is one reason why we will keep corporation tax at 19% rather than increase it to 25%. What I do not know is whether the Labour party support that.

Helen Hayes: I would like to relay to the Chief Secretary a message that I just received from one of my constituents who was watching Prime Minister’s questions. My constituent said:
“The Prime Minister says she is unashamedly pro-growth and pro-business, but our local dry cleaner was in tears this morning at the news that their energy bill has gone up more than four-fold. They say they get it but they really don’t.”
What does the Minister have to say to my constituent and thousands more of my constituents who are simply terrified about how they will sustain their businesses or keep a roof over their heads in the context of the self-inflicted chaos and harm to our economy that his Government are causing?

Chris Philp: On the energy bills for the dry cleaner in the hon. Member’s constituency, she must be aware that the whole world has been experiencing the energy price crisis as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. That is driving energy prices higher. The dry cleaner should be the recipient of the business energy guarantee scheme in relation to their bill. It should not see bills rising as high as she suggested, so if she writes to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or to me about that case, I will be very happy to look into it to make sure that the business—like businesses in all our constituencies—is being properly protected.

Steve McCabe: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), will the Minister give us a few details of the Government’s back-up plan to protect people’s pensions, should the run on gilts continue when current Bank of England support ends, despite dire warnings from the pensions industry?

Chris Philp: As I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England and his officials. The Bank of England has responsibility for financial system stability and I have complete confidence in its ability to manage that.

Wendy Chamberlain: The energy price guarantee still means increases in costs for consumers. We know that disabled people already face higher costs, and the only support that thousands of unpaid carers receive from the Government is carer’s allowance. In many cases, that means that they have been excluded from cost of living support. In addition, carer’s allowance is effectively means-tested due to the earnings cap, meaning that carers cannot seek work, as the Chief Secretary seems very keen for them to. Will he commit to ensuring that we review the carer’s allowance situation and, if not, that we provide further support to carers, who do such valuable work?

Chris Philp: The hon. Lady is right that despite the energy price guarantee—the decisive intervention that has protected our constituents from £5,000 or £6,000 bills—bills this year are higher still than they were last year. That is why we have made the £37 billion intervention, which, for people on lower incomes, amounts to £1,200 a year. There is more money on top of that for people with disabilities for the reason that she mentions. As for reviewing various components of disability and caring benefits, those will get reviewed in the normal way along with the other benefits. The Minister with responsibility for welfare and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lay all that out in the coming weeks.

Nick Smith: I, too, am really concerned about the oversight of our pensions industry. When was the last stress test to see whether these funds  had sufficient liquidity to cope with market turbulence, and can the Minister explain in simple terms the regulation of pension funds right now? Our country needs pension stability, not ongoing, home-grown financial crises.

Chris Philp: We have excellent regulators overseeing our financial system and pensions in particular, whether we are talking about the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority or the Pensions Regulator. They are all rightly independent, but all of us in Government and Parliament can have every confidence that they are making sure that our system is operating safely and securely.

Gavin Newlands: The Minister said that the Government were being fiscally responsible. I am no expert, but fiscal responsibility does not usually result in the market and the wider UK economy being set ablaze in what can only be described as a bin fire. With the pound in freefall, pension funds on the brink, unfunded tax cuts for the rich, mortgage payments up by hundreds of pounds and the UK’s financial institutions—barring the Institute of Economic Affairs, obviously—utterly undermined, the Government are waiting another six weeks to show their working. That is not fiscally responsible; it is chaos theory-IEA style. Will the poorest pay for this or will benefits be uprated in line with inflation—yes or no?

Chris Philp: The hon. Member was obviously not listening to my previous answers in which I said that the decision has not been taken and the CPI figure, which is a critical input into the decision, has not even been published yet. I also explained how interest rates around the world are rising—they have risen more in the US than they have here—and how the dollar has been strong against a number of currencies. Its strengthening against the euro has been only about 3% higher so far this year than it has against sterling, so I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation at all. As for fiscal responsibility, we have the second lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. The Chancellor said that we will get the debt-to-GDP ratio falling over the medium term. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) has less than three weeks to wait, if he can contain himself, before the medium-term fiscal plan is set out in full.

Ellie Reeves: A local teacher and her partner wrote to me last week. Once their fixed-rate mortgage comes to an end, their mortgage will rise by £9,000 a year; that is an extra £750 a month. They are terrified and cannot sleep because they do not have that sort of money spare. I have listened to the Minister’s answers, but given that the IMF’s Tobias Adrian said yesterday that the announcements on 23 September triggered rising interest rates, will the Minister finally accept that the Conservative Government’s mini-Budget has caused this chaos for our constituents?

Chris Philp: We have every sympathy with people who are struggling. That is why we have the energy price guarantee. It is why we have had the £37 billion intervention. It is why we are cutting taxes, particularly for people on lower incomes. It is why the minimum wage increased by so much a few months ago. It is why we have increased the national insurance threshold to help people.
On interest rates, I have explained more than once this afternoon that there is a global cycle that has been going on for about nine months. So far in this calendar year, interest rates in the United States, a comparable economy, have increased one and a half times as much as in the UK: by 300 basis points, compared with 200 basis points. It is very important that the House keeps that context in mind.

Rachael Maskell: Yesterday, when I asked the Chancellor, he could not tell me how private pension schemes will be protected since the Bank of England has confirmed that it is ending its refinancing scheme. The Pensions Regulator has a responsibility to ensure that pension schemes are viable. However, in the current economic situation, without making demands on employers and workers, those pension schemes will collapse. How is the Chief Secretary going to respond?

Chris Philp: I have to say that the speculation in which the hon. Lady is engaging is slightly reckless, if that is perhaps not too strong a word. We have extremely capable regulators: the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Pensions Regulator and others. Their responsibility is to make sure that our financial system, including pensions, is safe and secure for our constituents. The Government have complete confidence in our regulators, and I think the House should as well.

Fleur Anderson: There has been growth since the mini-Budget: a growth in people stopping me on the street in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields to say how worried they are about their bills and rising mortgage costs. I met estate agents in Putney this week; they say that the stamp duty change will make absolutely no difference to the housing crisis in Putney. What does the Chief Secretary say to families who are looking at a £500 increase in the cost of their mortgage as a result of this failed strategy, or at having that cost passed on to them if they are renting?

Chris Philp: When the hon. Lady was stopped in the street, I presume that she explained the points about global interest rates increasing. When her constituents asked about energy prices, I presume that she explained to them that this Government took decisive action on our third day in office to protect our constituents from bills that could have gone up to £5,000 or £6,000 a year. I presume that she also explained that the Labour party’s plan was good only for six months, but the plan that we have put in place lasts for two years.

Owen Thompson: We have seen the crash of the pound. We have seen mortgage prices going through the roof. We are seeing the cost of living across the country getting out of control. There has been economic chaos since this new Tory Government took over from the last Tory Government. May I ask the Chief Secretary: on a scale of one to 10, how well does he think it is going?

Chris Philp: I do not call the lowest unemployment for 48 years, and the top growth rate in the G7, economic chaos.

Florence Eshalomi: Small businesses across my constituency are watching the news with utter dread. They have just about survived the pandemic, the Brexit uncertainty and the collapse of the tourist trade in London, which really affects my constituency—we normally have more than 3 million people going through Waterloo station alone. The spiralling costs, combined with the recession, will wipe out any existing benefits or support from the Government. These businesses simply do not have six months. The Chief Secretary has gone on and on about growth, but does he agree that growth will happen only if these businesses survive the winter?

Chris Philp: That is why we have offered the energy price guarantee to businesses as well as to consumers, and why we are keeping corporation tax low at 19% rather than putting it up. Of course, that helps businesses of all sizes: any business making £50,000 a year or more in profit will benefit from the freeze in corporation tax. We do not yet know, as far as I am aware, whether the Labour party supports that position. The shadow Chancellor is sitting impassively, not giving any indication whether she supports lower taxes; I think the House would love to hear at some point what her views are.
Those are the things that we are doing to help businesses. Last night, we voted—the Labour party voted for it as well—to reduce the national insurance burden on businesses. That is the plan that we have to help businesses, and I am very proud to stand behind it.

Diana R. Johnson: I am very pleased to hear that the Chief Secretary has confidence in the Bank of England. The media are now reporting, for the seventh time, that the Bank of England has clearly linked the mini-Budget or UK-specific factors to the turmoil in the bond market. That includes, in the past hour, the Governor speaking to camera and to a room full of the world’s top banking chief executive officers in the US. Can the Chief Secretary explain to me why the Governor of the Bank of England is wrong and why he himself is right?

Chris Philp: Obviously I am not in Washington and have not heard those comments. I am not going to speculate about what the Bank of England Governor may have said. We are working closely with the Bank of England Governor and other regulatory authorities to make sure that we navigate these globally volatile markets successfully, but in the long term what matters is continuing to grow our economy. That is what the Government’s plan will do.

Stephen Flynn: The energy price guarantee is doing some heavy lifting today, so let us look at it in more detail. Energy Action Scotland has produced analysis in the past couple of days that shows that the average bill in Scotland will be not £2,500, but £3,300, and that for someone who lives in a rural area it will be in excess of £4,200. What message does the Chief Secretary have for people living in energy-rich Scotland, where we produce six times more gas than we use and almost all our electricity comes from renewables?

Chris Philp: Well, if the nationalist Administration in Scotland were willing to support more natural gas and oil extraction or indeed nuclear power generation, that  would help the energy situation. Renewable energy use in the United Kingdom has increased from, I think, 7% to 42% over the past 12 years, which is very welcome. The energy price guarantee has protected families and businesses across the United Kingdom from bills that could have been £6,000 or £7,000 higher, which is a huge amount. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the £37 billion intervention, which particularly helps people on lower incomes, giving them an extra £1,200 a year to support them with bills. The fact that we are in such an economically successful Union means that we can offer things like the energy price guarantee and the £37 billion energy intervention.

Gerald Jones: It does not get more serious than this Tory-led crisis made in Downing Street. Only yesterday, a mortgage adviser in my constituency contacted me about offers that he is redoing for customers with increases of £300 to £500 a month. People are desperate for stability, but rates are changing by the day.
Commentators have said that sidelining the OBR in the recent mini-Budget and not having its assessment created more uncertainty. Does the Chief Secretary agree that sidelining the OBR was not helpful and was a mistake? Can we have a guarantee that it will not be sidelined on 31 October or in any future fiscal event?

Chris Philp: When the new Government came into office there was a need to act urgently on the energy price guarantee, and to alleviate the extra national insurance burden, which the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine are paying right now, but—thanks to yesterday’s vote—will not be paying from 6 November. That is why it was done quickly: to address the situation in front of us.
The OBR will be fully scoring the medium-term fiscal plan on 31 October. There is a statutory requirement under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 for the OBR to produce forecasts twice in every financial year. That commitment will continue.

Carla Lockhart: The Chief Secretary will be aware of the stress on mortgage holders as they have watched deals being withdrawn with the prospect of steep rises ahead. What assurances can he give them that the Government will act to undo the damage done and to ensure that mortgages remain attainable and affordable for homeowners?

Chris Philp: When I checked, there were about 2,300 mortgages available. Obviously the global cycle of increasing interest rates is affecting people in the United Kingdom, as it is affecting people around the world, including in the United States of America, as I set out earlier. We are trying to make sure that other cost of living pressures are mitigated as far as possible through things like the energy price guarantee, reductions in the burden of taxation and the plan to continue economic growth.

Margaret Greenwood: A constituent has written to me to say that she and her partner are being priced out of the private rented sector. They recently secured a mortgage for a shared ownership flat, but the mortgage offer has now been withdrawn. She is desperately worried for herself, for her partner and for  their young son, who attends a local school. She says that the Government’s mini-Budget has destroyed their dream. Will the Chief Secretary apologise to my constituent? Can he tell her what she should do and how the Government will end this mayhem that they have caused?

Chris Philp: The Government are keen to help everyone, including the hon. Lady’s constituent, to get on to the housing ladder: that is something we strongly support. I have already explained about the global interest rate increase cycle that countries around the world are experiencing, but we are doing everything we can to help, and I believe that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be laying out some plans relating to house building in the coming weeks. We have already reduced stamp duty for first-time buyers—stamp duty is a particularly challenging element of buying a first home, because it cannot be funded by a mortgage—and the Government will continue to do everything they can to support people who are trying to get on to the housing ladder.

Mohammad Yasin: This is the question that my constituents want me to ask the Government: why is the Chancellor experimenting with their lives, putting their homes and pensions at risk, to test out his fancy economics? The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have no mandate to take the gamble that they are taking, so will the Chief Secretary urge his colleagues to ditch their disastrous Budget and put their new plans to the people in a general election?

Chris Philp: If the hon. Gentleman thinks it was all so disastrous, perhaps he could explain why he voted for it last night. The real gamble is having taxes that are too high. The real gamble is not having a plan for growth. This Government have a plan for growth; the Labour party has no plan.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister outline the specific help that is available to the working poor? They face not simply energy increases but mortgage increases, and increases in the cost of diesel and petrol just to get to work to actually earn some money, and the price of groceries is 15% higher. While those people’s top-line income does not qualify them for universal credit, the present circumstances must surely call for assistance. Will the Minister tell me and the House where that help will come from?

Chris Philp: We certainly do stand with the working poor. That is why we have increased the thresholds to ensure that people on lower incomes pay very little income tax and national insurance. It is why we froze petrol duty, and, indeed, cut it by 5p earlier this year. It is why we have increased the national minimum wage by such a large amount, from just £5.93 an hour under the last Labour Government to £9.50 an hour today. So we do stand on the side of the working poor, and I will certainly continue to work with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his constituents are looked after and protected in the years ahead.

Deidre Brock: Given that the UK Government, in the run-up to their fiscal statement, chose to ignore warnings from anti-poverty campaigners about the devastating impact that a lack of  targeted support for lower-income households would have on those households, will the Chancellor now be making some sort of assessment of the impact that that will have on levels of poverty in the UK?

Chris Philp: I dispute the claim that there was no targeting. I have already pointed out that the minimum wage has risen hugely under this Conservative Government, from £5.93 an hour to £9.50 an hour. When we made the first energy intervention this year with the £37 billion package, that was targeted: it was targeted, rightly, at people on lower incomes, so that those on the lower one-third of incomes received £1,200 per annum, and people with disabilities, and some pensioners, received even more than that.

Tahir Ali: Hard-working families are paying the price for this Government’s reckless kamikaze Budget. Hundreds of families in my constituency depend on universal credit while being in full-time work. According to a recent Survacion poll, 38% of them fear being made homeless next year while 34% fear having to resort to food banks next year. Given that the Government have just committed themselves to no spending cuts, will the Minister also make a commitment to ensuring that benefits are uprated to keep up with inflation, so that those most in need in my constituency and throughout the country will not be forced from their homes and left to go hungry?

Chris Philp: As I have said, no decisions have yet been taken; that will happen in the normal way in the coming weeks. I have already explained how the minimum wage has gone up and how we have alleviated the burden of taxation on people on lower incomes, but ultimately what will help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is ensuring that we have a growing economy so that everyone’s wages can go up, which is why we have a growth plan. I think the hon. Gentleman and his constituents can take comfort from, and be happy about, the fact that we have the lowest unemployment for 48 years and the highest growth in the G7. However, we would like to go further to help his constituents, and that is why we have a growth plan.

Ruth Jones: My son currently pays £612 a month for his mortgage. Next year, when his fixed rate comes to an end, he will be paying at least £1,300 a month. My daughter, a hard-working junior doctor, cannot even look at buying a property on her salary of £23,000 a year. The stamp duty cut is no help to her.
What this Government are doing is not hypothetical; it is real, and it is affecting people like my son and daughter. The U-turns, tax cuts for the richest and a failed Budget are all signs of a Government who are out of ideas. Will the Chief Secretary tell me why any person in the UK should listen to a single thing they say?

Chris Philp: As I have already explained repeatedly, there is a global increase in interest rates, and as I have also pointed out, the increase in base rates in the United States this calendar year has been 1.5 times higher than the base rate increase in the United Kingdom. We know  that people are facing pressures, for the reason that the hon. Lady set out, and also because of energy prices. That is why we have helped with the energy price guarantee. It is why we have put £37 billion towards helping people. It is why we are alleviating the tax burden on people on lower incomes, and it is why we have a growth plan. That is what we are doing to deal with these global pressures, and our plan is designed to help people exactly like the hon. Lady’s children.

Eleanor Laing: And the last word comes from Alan Brown.

Alan Brown: I thought you were going to say “Last but not least”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you.
According to figures published in connection with the mini-Budget, not implementing the corporation tax increase is predicted to cost the Treasury more than £2 billion in this financial year alone, and in subsequent years £12 billion, £17 billion, £18 billion and £19 billion: £68 billion in total. We can split hairs about whether or not that is a tax cut, but is not the reality that the Treasury’s own figures show that cosying up to business has created a £68 billion black hole?

Chris Philp: I thought you were going to say that you had saved the best till last, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is important to have internationally competitive rates of corporation tax. Keeping it at 19% is not just for big businesses; it is for smaller businesses too, because any business with profits of over £50,000 will benefit. Many of these businesses have a choice about where to locate. They do not have to locate in the United Kingdom, but could go to America, to Geneva, Singapore or South Korea. Many of them are internationally mobile. We want them to choose to locate in the United Kingdom and to invest in the United Kingdom—including, of course, Scotland—and that is why we are maintaining a competitive rate of corporation tax. We still do not know what those in the Labour party think about this, because they will not tell us.

Stephen Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Scottish Questions today the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), stated:
“I have raised before at the Dispatch Box the fact that the UK Government chose to sideline the Acorn carbon capture and storage project in the north-east of Scotland. The Scottish Government have refused to provide financing either.”
However, on 14 January this year, despite this being a matter for the UK Government, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson stated:
“That is why I am announcing today that we stand ready with up to £80 million of funding to help the Scottish Cluster continue and accelerate the deployment of carbon capture technology.”
May I seek your esteemed guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can ensure that the record reflects the reality?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to make that point of order. He will know, as the House knows, that it is not for the Chair to make any comment on the content of what hon. Members say  here in the Chamber. I am guessing that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that what was said today directly contradicted something that was said some weeks ago. Is that the basic point?

Stephen Flynn: indicated assent.

Eleanor Laing: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that every Member who speaks in this House is responsible for the veracity of what they say, and I am sure that if the record requires to be corrected, the people concerned will go ahead and correct it.
I should have checked this with the hon. Gentleman: did he give notice to the Members whom he has quoted?

Stephen Flynn: indicated assent.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to him for doing that. I know that he normally does things properly.
BILL PRESENTED

Energy Prices Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Simon Clarke, Alok Sharma, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack and Mr Secretary Buckland, presented a Bill To make provision for controlling energy prices; to encourage the efficient use and supply of energy; and for other purposes connected to the energy crisis.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 159) with explanatory notes (Bill 159-EN).

Point of Order

Penny Mordaunt: On a point of order, and for the convenience of the House, it may be helpful if I give some advance notice of my business statement tomorrow. In tomorrow’s business statement, I will announce that the business for Monday 17 October will be all stages of the Energy Prices Bill that has just been introduced. A motion appears on today’s Order Paper that, if agreed, will mean that notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted before the Bill has been read a Second time. I wanted to be able to advertise that fact, and I hope it is helpful to the House.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. It is indeed helpful to the House to know the intention of the Government on when this important Bill is going to come forward. I ought to add to that point of order and to the motion on today’s Order Paper relating to the management of the Bill that, for amendments at Committee stage, I will be lenient about the timetable for putting down such amendments. Just as the Leader of the House is trying to help the House, I will also try to help the House to engage in a full and proper debate on the Bill.

Marine Activities (Licensing)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23, and Order, 22 September)

Giles Watling: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer responsibility for marine licensing from the Marine Management Organisation to local authorities; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to be able to stand up for coastal communities today, particularly my own community of Clacton, a place I first came to in 1957 and have represented locally and nationally since 2007. I have seen at first hand what works locally and what, sadly, does not work. Our great coastline has evolved over millennia, and I hope to keep that track record going.
The Bill seeks to put in place a pilot to devolve many of the Marine Management Organisation’s functions to local authorities, and I will put forward my reasoning now. The MMO is a group that I have increasingly come to see as not fit for purpose in its current form. As a Member for a coastal area, and a boating man for over half a century, I like to think that I speak with some authority on this subject. Few people know about the vital role of the MMO. It manages some 90,000 square miles of hugely diverse seas and coastal areas, which is roughly the same size as the United Kingdom’s land mass. To give some context, 95% of our imports and exports come by sea, around 20 million tonnes of aggregates are taken from our seas for construction projects each year and the UK is working towards a third of our electricity being produced from offshore wind by 2030. Our seas are also home to 175 marine protected areas. At the same time, our seas and coasts are the backbone of our fishing and seafood industries, with a combined gross value added to the economy of almost £2 billion per year. This little-known group has tremendous control over all those activities.
The issues here are a lack of expertise in the subject, a deficiency in direction and oversight and, above all, thanks to our vast and varied coastline, a lack of local insight. In terms of real expertise, I have heard tales of faceless officials taking months and months to determine licences due to a lack of practical understanding of what they are looking at. Indeed, I was told that two officials from the MMO came to Walton-on-the-Naze in my constituency to take stock of a marine development in our backwaters. They seemed to be surprised about the tidal range and direction there.
Also, we recently had a serious issue with sea defences on the Naze, an area of land that projects out into the North sea. The sea wall that kept a sewage farm secure was deteriorating at a rapid rate. The local Naze Protection Society, with the assistance of landowners and local councillors, swung into action. After effecting temporary repairs, they made the plans, raised the money and ensured that the contractors were ready to go. All was in place, except for a licence from the MMO to carry out the necessary works. With every tide, and especially  every storm, making the job more difficult, urgent, and expensive, it was paramount that this licence was granted so that the works could commence, yet after 13 weeks, the MMO had failed to issue it. At this point I was approached and, after banging a few heads together, I managed to get the licence issued within an hour or so. Work began the very next day. It really should not depend on Members of this place calling Ministers and Secretaries of State to get these results. I pay tribute to the wonderful people involved in those vital works for raising tens of thousands of pounds and for keeping their patience with the MMO at that time.
Looking at the senior structure of the organisation, it is quite clear why we have an issue. The MMO’s senior executive and non-executive leadership is comprised of laudable expertise from Government Departments—such as the DWP in this case—and externally from the private sector world of communication. However, a central body, no matter how well led, cannot be expected to understand the minutiae of local issues as well as a local council can. The experience in Clacton with the MMO is meeting officers who were unaware of the tidal area we have on our sunshine coast. It is my strong view that the central leadership of our great public sector is simply not delivering in this case. The MMO was created by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and it should have regular reviews every three years. I welcome its 10-year plan, but there is nothing in there about the role that it can and should play in the regeneration of declining coastal communities such as my own.
It seems rather odd that we allow the MMO so much centralised power. We have seen planning and licensing become core parts of local authorities’ action plans. Councils are accountable and, by their very nature, have a deep understanding of local issues and their local scene. I think we need to look to a slimmer MMO with more devolution and with a non-executive directors board of experts with real-life experience holding it to account. I have held talks with my own district council in Tendring, the chief executive officer of which is the very capable Mr Ian Davidson, and it has expressed an interest in finding out how it could take on many of these functions—with, of course, centralised oversight. The council is prepared to carry out a pilot scheme and to spearhead this much-needed change. It is merely a case of local knowledge for local issues. You do not need to be a maritime expert to run the MMO, any more than you need to be a constitutional scholar to be a Member of this place. However, given the problems I have outlined, I feel it is time to say that localism has merit. We often speak about bonfires of quangos. Well, I think I have just found another log for that fire!
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Giles Watling and Stephen Metcalfe present the Bill.
Giles Watling accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 160).

Identity and Language  (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Chris Heaton-Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to speak to such an important Bill this afternoon, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will feel similarly about its gravity and weight. This legislation will go a long way towards recognising Northern Ireland’s rich diversity in identity and language, bringing tangible benefits for Irish language speakers, Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition.
Before I turn to the Bill’s provisions in more detail, I pay tribute to my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), who both championed this Bill. I am very pleased to continue their work.
However, I must temper my enthusiasm for the Bill with regret that it is we, as hon. and right hon. Members of this House of Commons, who are debating it rather than our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Assembly. To be frank, it was never the Government’s intention to introduce the Bill in this Parliament. I explain to those who are not aware that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly were both restored on 11 January 2020, when all five of Northern Ireland’s main political parties came together on the basis of a very good document, New Decade, New Approach, which contained a balanced package of measures relating to identity and language. Draft legislation was prepared by the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Northern Ireland and published alongside New Decade, New Approach for the Assembly’s consideration. It is therefore a matter of enormous regret that the package was not taken forward in a timely fashion by the previous Executive.
I do not intend to relitigate those arguments. Instead, I will use this Bill to look to the future. It will be the job of a newly constituted Northern Ireland Executive to take forward the implementation of this legislation. The provisions of this Bill are based on enshrining respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures and traditions, and indeed celebrating their contribution to Northern Ireland.
We introduced these provisions in the firm belief that Northern Ireland’s rich diversity contributes immeasurably to the Union, of which we are proud and to which this Government hold a proud and fundamental commitment. We are also taking separate but linked steps when it comes to identity and language, steps that reflect this pride in Northern Ireland’s cultural richness and diversity.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am very glad to learn that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) met representatives of Conradh na Gaeilge yesterday, and I am sure that he and the Secretary of State will both be aware that the language groups An Dream Dearg and Conradh na Gaeilge were instrumental in organising a campaign that saw 20,000 people on the streets of Belfast in May to support language rights.
Given that a commitment to reflect Welsh language legislation was made in the St Andrews agreement 16 years ago, will the Secretary of State indicate whether he is minded to accept the amendments along those lines that were discussed in the House of Lords?

Chris Heaton-Harris: When I was on a treadmill in the gym this morning and last night, I read the debates in Committee and on Report in the other place, and I will answer in exactly the same language. This package is exactly what was proposed in New Decade, New Approach, and we are sticking rigidly to that. As the right hon. Lady will know from those discussions, we are very proud of all the identities and languages across the four nations. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) was very pleased to have that meeting yesterday, and I believe it went particularly well.
Last year we announced £2 million in funding for Northern Ireland Screen’s Ulster Scots and Irish language broadcasting funds to help deliver more high-quality Irish and Ulster Scots broadcasting in Northern Ireland. In May 2022, the Government officially recognised the Ulster Scots as a national minority under the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities.
At the same time, under the section of New Decade, New Approach entitled “Addressing Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances,” we made £4 million available to the Irish Language Investment Fund to support capital projects associated with the Irish language.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for moving Second Reading today. Does he understand that, when it comes to the Irish language, the focus is on the language, but Ulster Scots—I am very proud to be an Ulster Scot—is more than a language? It is the culture, the art, the poetry, the music and the words. It is more than just a language to the Ulster Scots. How will the Bill ensure that Ulster Scots has the central focus that the Irish language has, because it is bigger than just a language?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The former leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party, Dame Arlene Foster, recognised in January 2020 that this is a “fair and balanced” package that has been agreed by all parties. I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am delivering on the agreement, as the Government promised.

Gavin Robinson: I am listening intently to the Secretary of State, and he is right to quote the former First Minister but wrong to associate this Bill with what was agreed in January 2020. In this Second Reading debate, I hope he will listen with an open mind to the concerns that my colleagues and I will raise about the Bill’s departure from what was agreed.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am always happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in this House.

Colum Eastwood: I am glad to see the Secretary of State implementing these key parts of New Decade, New Approach. Of course, other commitments within that agreement could not be delivered even when we had an Executive. There was a key commitment for  10,000 students at Magee University in Derry. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) agreed that we could have a medical school at Magee, which has now been delivered, but the real prize is a full-scale university for the people of Derry. Will the Secretary of State commit to getting that done?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Government are committed to delivering on New Decade, New Approach and all its commitments. That has come forward at different stages, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and today we are hopefully celebrating the Second Reading of this part of that delivery.
It will not have escaped right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill began life in the other place, where the debate was typically forensic. The Government will move a number of amendments to address issues raised in the other place, and I will shortly delve into their content in slightly more depth, but I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support them when the time comes. I feel strongly that the amendments will improve the Bill.
I will briefly discuss the overall strategic intention of the Bill before running through its provisions in turn. Broadly speaking, the Bill delivers on the commitments detailed in annex (e) of New Decade, New Approach to
“respect the freedom of all persons in Northern Ireland to choose, affirm, maintain and develop their national and cultural identity and to celebrate and express that identity in a manner which takes into account the sensitivities of those with different national or cultural identities and respects the rule of law.”
In practical terms, the Bill does this by broadly replicating the draft legislation on identity and language published alongside New Decade, New Approach. As I have already set out, the draft legislation was prepared by the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Northern Ireland at the request of the UK Government. We have done our utmost to stay as close as possible to the draft legislation. The Bill therefore provides for the delivery of a cultural framework, as set out in New Decade, New Approach, to the benefit of the whole community in Northern Ireland.

Stephen Farry: I concur with the Secretary of State that the Bill broadly reflects New Decade, New Approach. On reflecting the community, does he agree that it is important to think about both the Irish language and Ulster Scots as shared across the community, and not the sole attribute of one side or the other? They are something that we all have in common, and the different languages and traditions are part of a very rich history in Northern Ireland and across the island, which we should promote.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I believe that this can be celebrated across all communities and in all ways with the respect it truly deserves, so yes, I happily agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
Secondly, the Bill provides for a requirement for public authorities to have due regard to the national and cultural identity principles, and the establishment of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to oversee them, fostering mutual respect and understanding of Northern Ireland’s different national and cultural identities.
Thirdly, the Bill provides for the creation of an Irish language commissioner, providing official recognition for the Irish language, and a requirement on public authorities to have due regard to Irish language best practice standards when providing services to the public.
Fourthly, the Bill repeals the Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737.
Fifthly, the Bill creates a commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition, who will be responsible for the enhancement and development of the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition; and a duty on the Northern Ireland Department of Education to encourage and facilitate the use and understanding of Ulster Scots in the education system.
Finally, the Bill provides for the safeguarding of the delivery of these New Decade, New Approach commitments by giving the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—currently me—the ability to ensure that they are implemented.

Andrew Murrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that modern, 21st-century Northern Ireland is home to a large number of traditions, particularly the Polish community, who are a very valued part of Northern Ireland society? Does he agree that in everything he is outlining, which I welcome, it is important that those communities feel included, particularly when we are talking about an Irish language from which they might be excluded, as of course Polish is probably more fluently spoken in Northern Ireland than the Irish language at the moment?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise counsel on this matter. I was having a conversation earlier today where I was reminded of the large number of Hong Kong Chinese who also live in Northern Ireland, contribute to the economy and are assimilated into different communities. So I completely understand the wise point he is making.

Sammy Wilson: As the earlier intervention pointed out, while we agonise over an Irish language commitment there are more Chinese speakers and Polish speakers in Northern Ireland than Irish speakers. The Secretary of State quickly glossed over the role of the two commissioners, which is one of the ways in which this Bill does not faithfully reflect what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. The Irish language commissioner will have the power to direct other public bodies, which will have a significant impact, especially on some Unionist-controlled councils, depending on the decisions he makes. The Ulster Scots commissioner will have no such power to direct. How does the Secretary of State explain the disparity between the treatment of those who are looking for the protection of Ulster Scots, where there is no power to direct, and the treatment of those looking for the protection of the Irish language?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. This serious subject was well debated in the other place and I am sure he will be tabling amendments to probe the Government further on these matters, which we will have a long time to discuss. I go back to what was said in the other place by the Minister, which was that we are trying to reflect honestly and  truthfully what was agreed at the time of New Decade, New Approach. As I have detailed, the two commissioners have distinct jobs—they are slightly different. I will be happy in Committee to go through with him in great detail where those levels lie and why exactly the level of detail is as it is.

Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State is right to say that the two commissioners have distinct jobs, but the important thing is that we must make sure that both these people have the same ability to deliver what they are expected to deliver when they do their job. If we give a power of direction to one commissioner but not to the other, although they may have distinct jobs they do not both have the ability to respond and to deliver for the people they are meant to represent.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I would never like to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I would like to think that when we get to debate the detail of the responsibilities of each commissioner and how those duties could be implemented, I would be able to allay some of the concerns he has just outlined. However, I will go into some more detail now, having I hope given the House a broad picture of what this Bill does. Let me go through the clauses and schedules in turn, to try to put a tiny bit more meat on the bone.

Mike Penning: I thank my right hon. Friend for taking so many interventions. As a former Northern Ireland Minister, I am pleased that this Bill is coming forward, even though I probably agree with some of my former colleagues that it might need a little tweaking, which we can discuss as we go through it. We have discussed Chinese, Mandarin and Polish, but one language we have not discussed is British Sign Language. It came into statute after the agreements we are talking about were done. How will BSL and the people who rely on it be affected by the Bill?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. BSL was briefly mentioned in debate in the other place and I believe a probing amendment was tabled on it. BSL is not reflected in this Bill, because BSL is, we hope, already well respected and widely used across Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. He may like some more information or help, and perhaps he wishes to table a probing amendment on BSL. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I tabled amendments to make sure that sign language was available in the different languages that the European Parliament used at the time, and I believe it is vital for us to be able to communicate with all parts of society. However, this package is purely about what was agreed back in January 2020 in New Decade, New Approach, and BSL was widely in use at that point in time.

Mike Penning: The point I was trying to make is that since the agreement was made—it is the basis of this legislation—it has become law in these islands that BSL is an official language. It has been used extensively for many years, but it is now in statute that BSL is an official language of this country, which is why I am interested as to how the Bill will affect that.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I hear what my right hon. Friend is saying, but BSL is not reflected in this Bill at this point. I am sure he can add expertise and wise counsel as to whether this is the right place for any addition of that type.
Clause 1 amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make provision for the national and cultural identity principles, and requires specified public authorities to have due regard to them when carrying out their functions. These principles affirm the freedom of everybody in Northern Ireland to choose, affirm, maintain and develop their national and cultural identity, and to express and celebrate that identity in a manner that takes account of the sensitives of those with different national and cultural identities. Furthermore, public authorities should encourage and promote reconciliation, tolerance and meaningful dialogue between those with different national and cultural identities.
Clause 1 also establishes the new Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, which will be required to promote awareness of the principles, and to monitor and encourage compliance with them. It will, for example, be able to issue public guidance on best practice for complying with the new duty and to commission research into matters relating to national and cultural identity in Northern Ireland. Clause 1 was also amended in the other place, and I will tackle that when I talk about new clause 8, as inserted in the other place, a bit later in my remarks; further details are also contained on the proposed Office of Identity and Cultural Expression.
Clause 2 provides for the official recognition of the status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland and the appointment of an Irish language commissioner to enhance and protect its use by public authorities when they are providing services to the public. The commissioner, who will be appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly, will develop standards of best practice to which public authorities must have due regard. Those standards will have to be approved by the First and Deputy First Ministers before they can take effect. The commissioner will also monitor and promote compliance with approved standards and investigate complaints where it is claimed by a person directly affected that a public authority has failed to comply with its obligations.
Clause 3 makes provision for the appointment of a commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. The commissioner will be required to promote awareness of services provided by public authorities in Ulster Scots or those likely to be of particular interest to those with an interest in the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. The commissioner will also be required to provide and publish advice, support and guidance in respect of such language, arts and literature, reflecting the Government’s recent recognition of Ulster Scots under the framework convention, as I set out earlier. That advice will also cover the effects and implementation of that international agreement, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the Council of Europe charter for regional or minority languages. For Members who are interested in this matter, schedule 3 contains further details about the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: To those on the DUP Benches, it is evident from the Secretary of State’s explanation that there is a disparity  between the power of the two commissioners. One has the power to direct; the other has the power to issue advice. That is important, because I was involved in the discussions on the New Decade, New Approach agreement, and we were very clear. We have seen local council buildings in Northern Ireland stripped bare of any vestige of British identity. We wanted to protect the right to reflect our identity in public buildings and public spaces, yet I do not see any power for the Ulster British commissioner to direct councils where they are stripping out the Ulster British identity from their public buildings and public spaces. He can offer advice, but does that compel a council to act? For us, this is a key issue.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The right hon. Gentleman is correct; the duty is to give due regard to the items that I have listed. I would like to think that some of the measures that I have outlined would act as safeguards. The appointment of the commissioners must be made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in agreement, and there will be a level of understanding at that point in time, but I completely understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman has been making.

Andrew Murrison: My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. The fact of the matter is that the 2021 census showed that there is pretty much equality of facility, at least at some level, between the Irish language and Ulster Scots, at I think 12.4% and 10.4%. We also want parity of esteem between the two communities, yet it is not clear to me—I hope he can help me out on this—why there is such a difference between the commissioners in the legislation. It seems to me, on the principle of parity of esteem and given the more or less equal pegging between the two languages in the most recent census, that they should be dealt with equally.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I have some statistics that back up his point, from the 2021 “Knowledge and use of Irish and Ulster-Scots in Northern Ireland” report, which is published annually by the Department for Communities. It states that 17% of adults have some knowledge of Irish, 8% can read in Irish and 5% can write in Irish, whereas 16% of adults have some knowledge of Ulster Scots, 4% can read Ulster Scots and 1% can write in Ulster Scots.
I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s main point, but I hope he will understand that we have faithfully lifted from what was agreed at the time of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. That is what I am currently talking about, and I am quite sure that we can go into detail in debate in Committee about why that needs to remain as it is, but if he will allow me, I shall now move on a tiny bit.

Sammy Wilson: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will give way one final time.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister is being very generous. Does he understand the point that has been made? As far as the Ulster Scots community is concerned, the attack on that community, especially by Sinn Féin-dominated councils in the west of Northern Ireland, has meant the stripping out of any of the symbols  identified with the Unionist community. If the role of the Ulster Scots commissioner is to look at the whole remit of culture, and if there is already known to be a problem in Sinn Féin-dominated councils that ruthlessly try to stamp out any of the Unionist tradition, surely that is the most compelling reason to give that commissioner the ability to stop that kind of cultural destruction through the power to direct.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making his point with strength and passion. I will not go any further on this particular point today, as I believe I have outlined the case that I would make, but as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I would be very happy to listen to, and hopefully explain and debate, various amendments that might be brought forward on the matter in Committee.
If the House will indulge me, I shall race through the final piece of my speech, because I do not want to take all the time, which is rapidly running out. Of the various other clauses, clause 8 is a new clause inserted by Members of the other place following a further set of amendments from the Government. That clause, alongside the amended clause 1, relates to the establishment of the Castlereagh Foundation. The Government are committed to fund the establishment of the Castlereagh Foundation, as Members will see from paragraph 25 of annex A to the New Decade, New Approach agreement. It was envisaged that the foundation would explore identity and the shifting patterns of social identity in Northern Ireland, and more detail will obviously come to the fore during further debates.
Taken as a whole, the Bill is a hugely important milestone when it comes to identity and language in Northern Ireland. Communities in Northern Ireland have long been awaiting progress in this area. The Bill celebrates Northern Ireland’s different identities and cultures, which contribute immeasurably to the strength and character of our Union, and demonstrates the Government’s commitments to all parts of it. Having followed the debate in the other place, I am cognisant of the fact that not all right hon. and hon. Members, from across all parties, will like everything in this Bill. I accept and respect that, and my door, and indeed that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, is always open.
However, the Government are determined to see the Bill through this House in a timely fashion, given how long it has taken to get here. We owe it to all communities in Northern Ireland to do that. Indeed, it is our sincere and genuine hope that the parties in Northern Ireland will form an Executive in the not-too-distant future, to make the necessary appointments, oversee the implementation of this important package and maybe deal with some of the issues raised by hon. Members in today’s debate. Until then, the Bill is a reminder that the UK Government will always deliver on our commitments to Northern Ireland and care deeply about its people of all communities, and I commend it to the House.

Peter Kyle: I would like to begin by passing on my condolences and that of the Labour party for the 10 people who were tragically killed last week in Creeslough. I would also like to thank the  emergency workers in Northern Ireland who provided help, working in partnership with their colleagues across the border.
I thank the new Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill and welcome the new Minister for Northern Ireland to his place. The Bill broadly keeps with the identity and language commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement—I see the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), in his place—and the achievements of those on both sides of the Chamber who negotiated it are recognised across the House, and certainly by us in the Labour party. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be speaking, so that we can benefit from his insight into the deal at the time.
That deal led to the restoration of the Executive after an extended period of absence and had, at the time, the agreement of all parties. This legislation is a serious undertaking and I pay tribute to the officials who have worked on it. It combines three separate draft Bills, which were supposed to be taken forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where they would have benefited from the enhanced scrutiny of local representatives. The Bill creates the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, recognises the status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland and provides for the appointment of an Irish language commissioner and a commissioner for the Ulster Scots. To effect these changes, the Bill directly amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Crucially, it adheres to the principles that underpin the Belfast/Good Friday agreement: equality, respect and parity of esteem.
As the Bill was introduced in the other place, it has benefited from a wealth of expertise from our colleagues there. I strongly recommend that Members read those insightful debates—whether they do so on a running machine is for them to decide; how the Secretary of State managed to read those contributions while running is something that I cannot quite comprehend. I pay particular tribute to Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who helped to negotiate the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The agreement recognises that the Irish language and Ulster Scots form part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland. These languages are part of our shared heritage, too, as the United Kingdom. Indeed, it was enriching to see the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) recently swear allegiance to the King in Ulster Scots.
Other contributions during the Bill’s passage recognise the wider history behind the identity and language issues. The Bill contains a clause that repeals the Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737—very long awaited by Irish language groups. It includes an amendment passed in the other place establishing the Castlereagh Foundation, which will explore shifting patterns of identity in Northern Ireland. We welcome the provisions that create a clear, unambiguous legal framework, which will help and inform public authorities and Government Departments about their duties and responsibilities regarding language promotion.
Language and identity issues have clearly always been a part of the peace process. They have often featured in the agreements made to restore devolution in Northern Ireland, as happened during the St Andrews and the New Decade, New Approach periods. The Government have set out that they believe the Bill will help to take the sting out of these issues and to prevent  them from paralysing the institutions again in future. We also support the Bill on that basis, and we want to see the normalisation of language rights to take some of the politics out of them. Of course, it is a matter of regret that this legislation is not being discussed and passed at Stormont. Sadly, we are experiencing another period in which devolved government in Northern Ireland is not functioning. But the Government are doing the right thing by introducing this legislation here. We welcome that and that they are the honouring commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement.
There were repeated promises to proceed with this legislation following that agreement. It is remarkable that, in the written ministerial statement of 21 June 2021, the Government promised to introduce this Bill by October 2021. When the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) was Secretary of State, he repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that the Bill would be introduced before the end of the last Stormont mandate. It should not be so easy for the Government to let slip their own deadlines and promises to Northern Ireland.
We should all be concerned that the Executive have not been functioning for more than 40% of the time since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. People need a stable, functioning Executive to meet the enormous health and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland in the coming months amid the cost of living crisis that our entire country is facing. The Government are trying to prevent any further identity and language issues destabilising Northern Ireland by giving the Secretary of State new powers. This legislation would permit them to step in, if necessary, to implement what the Bill is trying to achieve.
I want to repeat that it should be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to discuss and debate legislation whose territorial extent is within Northern Ireland. However, the Opposition will scrutinise the Bill and suggest amendments in areas where we think it can be improved. We have concerns about how cultural expression on the basis of “sensitivities” is to be interpreted in practice. It might be more appropriate to use a human rights basis. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that in his winding- up speech.
We would also welcome further clarification on the Castlereagh Foundation, and on whether the Government will publish the written advice available to the Northern Ireland Office before the Bill reaches Committee stage. It is positive that the Government are trying to uphold other commitments that they made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. We would be glad to hear an update from the Minister on the connected classrooms programme, which was another promise made by this Government. We could do with some clarification on when that will be brought forward.
There is also the question of whether the Bill needs to address the recent court ruling about the Executive being in breach of their legal duty by failing to adopt strategies on Irish language and Ulster Scots. Additionally, while the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to step in, I know that there is concern that there are no timeframes or conditions for when they will take action. Assurances that there will not be undue delay would be welcome especially considering the history of this legislation and the delays that it has undergone. Overall, however, I reiterate the Labour party’s support for the Bill and hope it receives swift passage through this place.

Julian Smith: May I add to the comments of the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) about the tragedy in Creeslough?
I welcome the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to the House, although I echo and support the comments that have been made about how it would have been better if such legislation had taken place in a devolved space. None the less, I accept that it is great that the Bill is being brought forward. Language rights in Northern Ireland is an extremely emotive issue, and it was a very emotive issue during the negotiations over the New Decade, New Approach agreement. I genuinely believe that the Bill enhances the language provision, the culture provision and the rights that stem from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the St Andrews agreement and previous agreements, so I support the Government in moving forward with it.
There was a lot of talk at the time about the Irish language. Many campaigners, some of whom are in the House today, campaigned hard for clearer Irish language rights, despite the fact that councils in Northern Ireland can already conduct their business in the Irish language. There was some very strong campaigning on the issue here and by youth groups and other groups in Northern Ireland, so I hope that the Bill provides a good and balanced approach to what they have been wanting for many years.
The Bill will establish the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. It is worth paying tribute to the former MP for Belfast South who did a lot of work, along with other Northern Ireland colleagues, on the structure of aspects of this Bill, particularly the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. There is the provision for two commissioners: the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. It had been difficult, during New Decade, New Approach, to get adequate balancing for the two commissioners. I accept some of the points that have been made today about duties: at the time, there were concerns about the commissioners having direction and directive powers, but further aspects have been raised today that may require more analysis.
There has been a huge debate about the Irish language that has resulted in this Bill, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, Ulster Scots is spoken, or at least understood, by an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland. It is not a fringe dialect but a growing language that is integral to many traditions across Northern Ireland, particularly in North Antrim and Strangford, as I am sure we will hear. That is reflected in the recent census, which showed that many people do not identify as British or Irish but have a Northern Irish identity and that Ulster-Scots is extremely important to them.
I note that concerns have been raised by the Ulster-Scots Agency, who I spoke to today, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at aspects of the powers of the commissioners. I recall that during that negotiation there was concern on both sides about directive powers of the commissioners.
The official recognition of Ulster-Scots as a national minority under the framework convention is a positive move, and I will speak a little about the vibrancy of Ulster-Scots. In Derry, Derry and Raphoe Action has  organised Ulster-Scots cultural evenings and runs initiatives to increase skills for young people in the Ulster-Scots community, including piping and drumming, singing and dancing classes. The Kildoag pipe band, made up of young people from Derry, was successful at the world championships in Glasgow in August.
The strong Ulster-Scots culture in Derry city and Strabane reflects the huge cultural diversity across Northern Ireland. The poet Angeline King, who is from Larne in County Antrim and is writer in residence at Ulster University—her work includes “A Belfast Tale”—focuses on Ulster-Scots and explores the complex and diverse culture in Northern Ireland. It is worth also reiterating the vibrancy of Ulster-Scots in the Republic of Ireland. Three Ulster counties of Cavan, Monaghan and County Donegal—particularly, although I might be corrected, in the Finn Valley area of County Donegal—have a significant amount of Ulster-Scots culture. The Frances Browne Ulster-Scots poetry competition in Donegal, which celebrates the legacy of Frances Browne, the blind poetess of Ulster from Donegal’s Finn Valley, runs competitions in Ireland’s three traditional languages, Irish, English and Ulster-Scots. It is obviously not appropriate to comment on the broadcasters of other nations, but I think I am right in saying that on RTÉ there is no broadcast programming in Ulster-Scots, which is something that might be looked at or considered in future campaigns.
When I was Secretary of State, I had the privilege of engaging with several groups dedicated to the Ulster-Scots tradition. Those organisations continue to be supported by the Department for Communities—there are more than 1,000 active Ulster-Scots groups. The Ulster-Scots writing competition will be hosted in the Linen Hall library, the oldest cultural establishment in Belfast. National Museums NI has introduced a new “Languages of Ulster” project, which offers people the opportunity to explore the rich and diverse language traditions associated with both Irish and Ulster-Scots.
There is a fantastic blogger and Tweeter called Lentil Pentil in Scotland—I do not think she is the sort of person who wants a push from a Tory MP, but she does an Ulster-Scots word of the day and is well worth having a look at. As we have heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) recently swore his oath in the dialect.
I welcome the fact that the Bill proposes that the Department of Education will “encourage and facilitate” the use of Ulster-Scots in the Northern Ireland school curriculum. I note also that the Ulster-Scots Agency would like more support with grants and funding to make that happen. There is also the question of Ulster-Scots A-levels, university degrees and the creation of research institutes, and I hope those will be considered in the future. There has been a very good review of the Ulster-Scots tradition by the Department for Communities, and that report is well worth considering.
On the issue of funding, my understanding is that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport did cover funding for broadcast, but that has now come to an end. I hope the Government, with their sizeable budget, could have a look at that and continue to support broadcasting activities in Ulster-Scots.
This Bill is a significant step forward. The Good Friday agreement states:
“An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society”.
The Bill delivers on fundamental rights for Irish speakers and Ulster-Scots speakers. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the agreement, the Bill follows its spirit and will ensure that the Ulster-Scots tradition thrives over the next decade and beyond.
I grew up in Scotland where there is a fantastic word, “scunnered”, which I think adequately reflects the sentiment on the Government side of the House today.

Richard Thomson: How do I follow that word?
I begin in all seriousness by echoing the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House about the appalling events in Creeslough. I send my personal condolences to all who have lost their lives, their families and all those who have been deeply affected by that awful tragedy.
The Scottish National party welcomes this Bill, although we, like others, very much regret that the legislation is being brought forward in this place rather than through the Northern Ireland Assembly. It deals with two languages that are clearly integral to the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland. As hon. Members have mentioned, both Irish and Ulster-Scots are languages with significant usage; the latest census shows that 12.5% of people in Northern Ireland have use or some use of the Irish language and some 10% have use or some use of Ulster-Scots.
Ahead of this debate, I happened across a publication online produced by the British Council on Ulster-Scots. Obviously, I was familiar with the strong cultural links and shared vocabulary between Ulster-Scots and Scots, but I do not think I had fully taken on board how similar they were. There was such similarity that, were I to live in Northern Ireland, I think I would be able to include myself in that 10%.
We have already heard the word “scunnered” from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith); it is a word that frequently applies to how we feel when things in this place do not go our way. “Aye”—for yes—is a word that every hon. Member ought to be familiar with, along with blether—always more than a few of those about the place—boak, crabbit, eejit, flit, oxter and thrawn. Then of course there is “sleekit”, although, were I to apply that word specifically to any hon. Member, I am sure I would be getting my knuckles rapped from the Chair, so I will not seek to do so. There may be an occasion where I want to push my luck, but it is not this afternoon.

Eleanor Laing: Order. For the sake of clarity, I appreciate that a great many people in the House do not understand the words the hon. Gentleman has just used, but I do, and he is absolutely right about the way in which he might apply them. I will be listening carefully.

Richard Thomson: I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall take care to ensure that the rest of my remarks are within the parameters of normal parliamentary debate.
A language Act has been promised from the Good Friday agreement through the St Andrews agreement and, most recently, the New Decade, New Approach agreement, so in our view the Bill is long overdue. Language, culture and identity matter.
Linguistic rights are human rights, as reflected in various international conventions that seek to uphold the ability of linguistic minorities around the world to practise and use their own languages. Citizens have a fundamental right to their identity and to cultural expression. Those linguistic rights are contained in the United Nations declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, the European convention on human rights and the European charter for regional or minority languages.
Across these islands there is an unhappy legacy of the suppression of some of those rights. Thankfully, we have left behind the dark days of physical and cultural barbarism where children had their native tongues thrashed out of them in schools, but that is not the only reason for languages being marginalised.
Mass media produced in a dominant language has been a key driver of that as well. Indeed, the correlation between the decline in the use of Scots Gaelic in the home and the rise and availability of television in the English language is marked. Without action to rectify that, indigenous languages are often left in a parlous state, with a diminished and marginalised status. Steps can of course be taken to remedy that through schooling, broadcasting in those languages and support for cultural activities—those are just some of the more obvious examples.
Although a language might be in fairly common everyday usage—it could be a language of conversation, a language of song and poetry, or even a language of print—if it is not in daily use as a language of law, commerce or administration, any existing lack of parity of esteem is reinforced. That is deeply regrettable, because our languages are an essential part of our culture and heritage. Even if we speak more than one language, we will default to the language that is our most natural form of expression. Whether or not we speak all the languages from the places where we live, we are shaped by them and the inheritance they give as part of a cultural wealth that belongs to all. I firmly believe that, just as the promotion, support and legal recognition of Scotland’s languages—particularly Gaelic—has threatened no one, promoting the Irish and Ulster Scots languages should pose no danger to anyone’s culture or identity.
The Bill clearly gives official status to the Irish language, giving citizens in Northern Ireland the right to register births, deaths and marriages in Irish and to request court proceedings to take in place in Irish; increasing support for Irish-medium schools and more; and giving official recognition to the Ulster Scots language and culture. I recognise, as others have, the disparity in that, but the Bill would create an identifiable and recognisable policy landscape similar—at least in part—to that of Scotland, where the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 gives Gaelic legal official status, while the Scots language, which is spoken by upwards of 1.5 million Scots, does not have the same legal status. The Scottish Government are currently consulting on ways to support the Scots language, and I hope that one of the outcomes of that consultation will be a similar language Act recognising and giving status to Scots. I would be the first to acknowledge, however, that whatever similarities there are, the issues at play in Scotland are somewhat different.
A language Act might be a necessary step towards ensuring that a language survives and thrives, but it is insufficient on its own. I fully take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)  about the importance of the culture, music, song, poetry and everything else that supports a language and keeps it in daily popular use.
To draw my remarks to a close, giving official status to the Irish language and recognition to the Ulster Scots language and culture is a positive step, but I cannot help but feel that to enhance mutual respect not just between languages but between communities and traditions, there should also be parity of esteem in law, not just between the English and Irish languages, but between Ulster Scots and those languages, and that the institutions being created and the powers granted by the Bill should be equal. Both commissioners should have the same status in law with the same powers behind them. That would be hugely beneficial to what I think we would all like the Bill to achieve: parity of esteem and helping to work towards mutual respect.

Carla Lockhart: On behalf of our party, I offer our deepest sympathies to the families who lost loved ones in the horrific incident in Creeslough—it is heartbreaking to see those scenes and the funerals that are taking place. Our thoughts are very much with the families.
It would be remiss of me not to point out at the outset that this matter is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, and it therefore ought not to be a matter of decision for this place. The deliberate move by the Government to bring the legislation through this place is yet another example of how the devolution settlement is set aside at the whim of the Government of the day if doing so is deemed politically expedient. It appears that this Government increasingly believe that the Northern Ireland Executive are best suited to performing a management-board function rather than acting as a democratically elected decision-making body. That weakens local democracy and, indeed, the very reason for a return of devolution in already very challenging circumstances.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend also notice a correlation between matters being brought to this House and out of the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the demands made by Sinn Féin for that to happen? Even though Sinn Féin Members refuse to take their places in the House, they are quite happy to lobby the Government to get the things that they want through the House. In most cases, the Government simply ignore things that concern Unionists, such as the protocol.

Carla Lockhart: Absolutely—kowtowing to the demands of Sinn Féin is often the way that it goes. For those reasons, we will vote against the Bill on Second Reading and table amendments. Should those changes not be made, we will continue to oppose the Bill.
Many Members have referred to New Decade, New Approach. It is almost as if that document consists of one issue—namely, that of language and identity. It does not, and I could list a range of commitments that the Government have given that are yet to be fulfilled. One, of course, relates to the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place in it. That remains unresolved, and I remind the Government that the Prime Minister  has given quite explicit commitments to the House on the essential components of any solution to the protocol issue. Those commitments must be delivered upon.
Language and identity are extremely sensitive issues in Northern Ireland because they mean a lot to sections of our population, whether they cherish the Irish language and identity, or their Ulster Scots identity and language is fundamental to who they are and how they express themselves. It is of deep regret that there have been times when language and identity—whether Irish or Ulster Scots—have been denigrated, abused by derision or abused by the weaponising of such language and identity by those for whom they are simply vehicles to pursue an overtly political goal.
It is my belief that, rather than addressing the facilitation and respect for language and identity, the Bill is, in fact, a reward for those who have weaponised the Irish language for decades. Those people have neither love nor learning when it comes to the Irish language; rather, their motive is to use it as part of a wider cultural war. Indeed, imposing the legislation on Northern Ireland society will only result in language and identity being a more potent weapon that causes greater damage to community relations and cohesion at a time when many of us wish to see a more united community focused on healing divisions, not aggravating them.
When talking about the political dynamic of Northern Ireland in this House, it is very rare that we do not hear words such as “consensus” or phrases such as “cross-community support”, which are deemed the cornerstone of the political process and progress made to date. Yet the legislation removes that cornerstone, and the self-proclaimed guardians of the Belfast Agreement are those behind its removal.

Colum Eastwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Carla Lockhart: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to speak later.
Part 2 of the Bill is the very antithesis of cross-community consent. Specifically, clauses 6 and 7 provide carte blanche for the Secretary of State to do as he or she wishes in these deeply controversial policy areas—something that was not agreed in the NDNA. Clause 6 states:
“The Secretary of State may do anything that a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department could do in the exercise of an identity and language function”—
anything; anything at all, regardless of the democratic mandate given to the Minister in that Department, regardless of the manifesto on which that Minister may have stood before the electorate and received his or her mandate. It is the power of direction taking precedence over the power of local voters: neither community consulted; rather, being instructed.
With increasing tendency, cross-community safeguards, at the heart of the Belfast and St Andrews agreement, are simply set aside when it suits the Government to do so. The word “disregarded” in the Bill stands out like a sore thumb. While Government figures and Members of this House may be ordering a birthday cake to mark the 25th year of the Belfast agreement next year, it is worth stating that the same people cannot have their cake and eat it—surely they cannot celebrate something while at the same time destroying it.
There is a deep-lying and justified suspicion within the Unionist community that such powers have only been taken, and will only be used, to appease the demands of the most vociferous and most divisive elements within the language and identity lobby. That being the case, it is not possible for us to support the legislation, in which there are no safeguards to address the concerns of Unionists and, indeed, those of a non-Unionist persuasion who do not subscribe to the radical agenda of the language and identity lobby. We rightly question whether the vast amount of public money set aside to satisfy those demands is the best use of finite public resources.
The data from the 2021 census of Northern Ireland shows that 228,617 people have some ability in Irish, with almost the same number—190,613—having some ability in Ulster Scots. On the basis of those numbers alone, it is hard to rationalise the disparity in this legislation between the status and powers of the Irish language commissioner, and that of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. It is a matter of deep regret that amendments tabled in the other place that could have provided recourse for at least some of these legislative inequalities were not accepted. That further cements belief among Unionists that the Government are more concerned with the concerns of one community over the other. That is a dangerous mindset in the context of Northern Ireland.
If the Government are serious about providing some degree of balance in the Bill, they must look at a number of areas with reference to the powers of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. The DUP believes that the functions of the commissioner should be extended to reference explicitly heritage and culture. Currently, the Bill provides only for language, arts and literature. If the ambition is to make this legislation as comprehensive as possible, such a change would be desirable to better reflect the extent and importance of the distinct traditions.
There are a series of shortcomings in the Bill relating to how the commissioners can respond to alleged breaches by public authorities of the requirements relating to Irish language and Ulster Scots. Should a public body face an alleged breach and is found to be culpable, the Irish commissioner can make recommendations on how a public body can
“remedy its failure and avoid future failures”.
In terms of the Ulster/British commissioner however, the remit is much more limited to giving advice only on how a body
“might have better regard to published facilitation guidance.”
That is insulting, to say the least.
Furthermore, the admissibility grounds for making merely a valid complaint are much weightier in relation to Irish. Even when it comes to devising an action plan on how a public authority will fulfil its obligations, there appears to be a requirement for Irish, but no similar requirement for Ulster/British. I ask the Secretary of State, in his summing up, to address that point specifically and to explain how such an imbalance is in the public interest and how it represents a balanced approach to both identities.
Let us not ignore the costs that will be associated with this Bill. If—and it is a big if—the Executive are restored, they will have an in-tray of issues that will come at unprecedented cost to the public purse: delivering  on the Bengoa reforms to our health service; investment in schools; addressing historic underfunding of special educational needs; road and rail investment; and tackling the problems associated with a crumbling water network. Yet this legislation will take money away from those priorities, which have an impact on us all, regardless of identity, and add further strain to the budgets of public authorities. What is more important: a bed for a cancer patient or an Irish or Ulster Scots translation of a public document that can be read in English by all?
I urge the Government to think long and hard about the core message that this Bill sends to those in Northern Ireland—not just around the lack of balance, as I have outlined—and fundamentally to consider the wisdom of cultural supremacy being enshrined in law.

Gavin Robinson: I had not intended to speak until perhaps the very end, so I am grateful to be called so early. I am delighted to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She very clearly and very fairly outlined some of the serious concerns that we have raised and will continue to raise, and which show the dangerous departure that the Government have adopted from what was agreed in NDNA.
There was an old television advert for Harp lager starring Colin Murphy, a comedian in Belfast. The question he posed in it was, “Is your glass half empty? Is your glass half full? Or more importantly, what’s in the glass?” It is through that prism that I shall approach my contribution this afternoon.
It is incredibly easy to be caught by arguments of the past around the Irish language and continue to stand in its way; and our most recent history will show what impact that had on good government in Northern Ireland, on progress in Northern Ireland and on showing respect for one another. I do not want to repeat that process; I am incredibly comfortable with what was agreed in NDNA.
The lengths and efforts that went into that negotiation were not only important in the wider context of social cohesion in Northern Ireland; they were important for our political progress at that time. Should somebody have an interest in the Irish language, which I do not, should somebody want to engage in a language that is of no interest to me, that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to take it further and build on the support that is there under the Belfast agreement for the Irish language and for Ulster Scots tradition—the Government support that is there, encouraging people to explore and build upon a flourishing language—that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to engage with Government Departments, if they want to write to a Government body and get a response, that is not something that will ordinarily trouble me; that is not something that I will be overly exercised by, and that is not something that I think we should be overly concerned about.
I think of the political aspirations that were outlined for year upon year, and government denied in Northern Ireland for these quests—they were not achieved in NDNA. In fact, Conradh na Gaeilge, one of the organisations that championed the cause of what it described as a “stand-alone Irish language Act” summarily failed, and Sinn Féin summarily failed in its negotiations at the time of NDNA. It wanted a stand-alone Irish language Act, but did not get it. It is not in New  Decade, New Approach, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted a commissioner with unfettered powers; it did not get it. It was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted an imposition on what would otherwise be equality legislation in Northern Ireland to provide for quotas in employment; it did not get it. It was not achieved: it is not there in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted the Irish language imposed on me, on my neighbours and constituents, and residents throughout Northern Ireland through road signs and everything else, but it did not get it. It was not negotiated in NDNA, it was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. From that perspective, I can take some comfort from what was agreed.
That is before we add in the counterbalances and the support for Ulster Scots and, for the first time, Ulster British. Why is it, if we look through the prism of a glass half full, that Unionists do not stand back and say, “For the first time, rather than being faced with having our culture and identity stripped out of buildings, civically or otherwise, throughout Northern Ireland, this is a legislative vehicle to enhance the Unionist and Ulster British tradition in Northern Ireland?” That is something that I support and welcome; it was secured through the NDNA negotiations, and through the provision of the commissioner for identity and the Ulster British commissioner. Those are good things. The provision of, and the agreement to provide for, the Castlereagh Foundation—providing Government-supported academic rigour to the case for the Union for the first time—is a great thing. It is something in the Bill that I welcome, and something that it was important for us to get agreement on at the time of NDNA.
But then, we get to the last part of the prism that I started with: what is in the glass? During the three years when there was no Government in Northern Ireland, I was incredibly frustrated by this faux argument about whether there was a stand-alone Irish language Act or not. It was totally irrelevant. The question is not, “Is it one chapter of a bigger book, or is it a book itself?” but “What does it say? What does it do?” However, that debate rarely featured in Northern Ireland society during those three years. Yes, the Scots have Scots legislation and the Welsh have Welsh legislation, so why can the Irish not have Irish legislation? That is a fair enough question, but the Scots legislation is not the same as the Welsh legislation, and neither is the same as the provisions in this Bill. They are different.
So, what is in the glass? What does it do? The fundamental error that Members will hear about from me and all of my colleagues this afternoon is that the Government have taken what was agreed through negotiation between parties in Northern Ireland, corralled, encouraged and spearheaded by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and decided to deliver in a one-handed fashion through this Bill aspirations that were not agreed at the time of NDNA. That is a fundamental disaster.
Within the Office of Identity, as the former Secretary of State will recall, it was important that no commissioner could proceed with their agenda for the year, their budget-setting process, or what they intended to do in their annual reports without the consent of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—the Executive Office. For the Secretary of State to assume  the power to do whatever he wants anyway, not just in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive but even in the presence of one, is an incredibly foolish approach to Northern Ireland politics. When we have an agreement that has been painstakingly thrashed out for years, whether it was officials in the Northern Ireland Office or former Ministers who thought it was a good idea to assume that power themselves through this Bill, it was a fool’s errand. That point will be discussed in Committee.

Stephen Farry: Given the argument that the hon. Member is making, would he explain why it was that over a two-year period when the Assembly and Executive were functioning, no effort was made to bring forward legislation within the Northern Ireland Assembly at a time when all those issues could have been addressed in the correct forum, rather than them defaulting to Westminster?

Gavin Robinson: Coronavirus. I am not sure whether the hon. Member was aware, but there was a pandemic in our country and around the world, and normal government was set aside in the interests of public health and public safety.
The Bill even envisages a situation—I think it is one of the subsections of clause 6—where an issue has been raised with an Executive Minister and brought to the Executive, but agreement has not been found. Sorry? Leaving aside our own personal political aspirations for this or any other Bill, where the Executive collectively decide not to do something but the Secretary of State, at the request of a one-sided aspiration, can decide to supersede them, what is the point in devolution? The presentation of the Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill makes it incredibly difficult for somebody who can stand here and openly and honestly say that he thinks the agreement two years ago was worthwhile, and should have been reached. It is causing support to crumble, because what was agreed is being set aside for things that could not, and would not, have been negotiated or agreed at the time.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend also accept that the Secretary of State then brings himself into the quagmire of disagreement in the Executive, and will increasingly find himself—as has happened on a number of occasions when legislation has come to Westminster—put under pressure by one particular political party, with all the threats of “If you do not act in the way that you are enabled to act and we want you to act, there will be consequences”?

Gavin Robinson: It is the antithesis of democracy; it has applied to a couple of other issues over the last number of years, and here we see it again. The Secretary of State and his colleague the junior Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), will today—as they did yesterday and will do tomorrow—implore that devolution be restored in Northern Ireland. That is a laudable idea, and I would like to see it, but the Minister cannot stand up today with a straight face and say, “I would love to see devolution restored so that we can get on with these issues, even though I am proposing through this Bill provisions that would mean that when you do not do what we like, we will do it for you anyway.” That is not the way in which we should proceed.

Steven Baker: I will deal with that point more fully later on, but I put on record on behalf of the Government that we have absolutely no intention whatsoever of behaving in that way, as is the long-standing position of the Government. We have no intention whatsoever of leaping in to use powers; they are all for the last resort, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows.

Gavin Robinson: If there was—and I cannot doubt the veracity of what the Minister says about the intention the Government may have—there is absolutely no need for the power in circumstances where the Executive is functioning. There is no need for the power in circumstances where the Ministers who are responsible for these issues are in office. If what he says is genuine, that should be an amendment that I trust he will engage with fully.

Sammy Wilson: Would my hon. Friend accept that, while it may not be the intention—and we accept the word of the Minister in his intervention—the reality is that once the power is in this Bill, there will be pressure, when somebody does not get their way, to go to the Secretary of State and demand that he or she exercises those powers, and if they do not then there could well be consequences? That is the whole point: put the power in the Bill and someone will expect it to be used.

Gavin Robinson: Now, and if not now, probably more purposefully in the future when circumstances change, personnel change and Government change. It is a road down which this Government should not have trod.
I started by indicating what I believe was right in the NDNA. I am culminating, having canvassed on the issues where I think the Government have erred in the presentation of the Bill, and it cannot have our support if it remains in this state. The Government have got themselves in a position where, having engaged with parties across the spectrum and with various aspirations, that is now crumbling, and I think that is hugely regrettable. I do not want that to be the end to this process, so I do hope that after Second Reading there will be a willingness to engage in a way that there has not been over the past four, five or six months, when officials and Ministers have ignored, baulked at or just fundamentally disagreed on what they think the Bill means and what we believe it means. We cannot proceed on that basis.
In asking whether the glass is half full or half empty, and highlighting the question of what is in the glass, I want to be in a position where we can raise a glass to the provisions in this Bill. It is the same position I was in when I stood in this Chamber, worked on and brought through—having brought in a private Member’s Bill myself—the provision about the statutory duty for the armed forces covenant. I brought that forward myself, we got it into the NDNA and it was delivered by this Government. Similarly, other provisions were secured in the NDNA, and we want to see them delivered. So I hope that we will be in a position where we can raise a glass, with a fully functioning Executive, to the progress that has been made. However, given the way the Government have brought forward this Bill and are advancing the aims of it, I am sorry to say that I do not see that happening any time soon.

Claire Hanna: I want, like others, formally to convey our condolences to and our solidarity with the people of Creeslough after the unimaginable tragedy that struck them on Friday. I know that the very sincere words from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the King have been warmly received and felt by every community across the island. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anamacha.
I would like to speak about this important—overdue, but welcome—legislation. It has been a long road to get here at length, but credit is due to the lovers of the language throughout the decades for their persistence and to those who did campaign for this legislation. Is fearr go mall ná go deo—it is better late than never.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—I am sure he would like to clarify that other beers are available—who made a thoughtful contribution. If that is his party’s position, it will be easier to engage with, because there are good provisions in the Bill and, crucially, these are provisions that the DUP agreed to in New Decade, New Approach.
The Bill provides for an Office of Identity and Cultural Expression for both Irish and Ulster Scots, with the aim of promoting pluralism and respect for diversity and shared cultural and linguistic heritage. It guarantees no diminution of the status of the English language, and yes, it does repeal the Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737. It provides for commissioner oversight to promote and ensure best practice in the use of language by public bodies.
Just for clarity, Members will be aware of the Social Democratic and Labour party’s approach to public bodies and public buildings. We believe in levelling up—to borrow a phrase of the time—on identity. We do not believe in expunging the shared history of this place, but it is just a fact that in many public buildings there will be no markers of identity for people of an Irish tradition, women, the LGBT community or trade unions. Buildings have been very much of a single identity for many generations, and it is appropriate that they will change. However, we stand by our shared history and seek to protect it, and this Bill will not undermine that.
We hope that this Bill will normalise and mainstream, and that it will remove a lot of the poisonous party politics that has thwarted the language. Language has of course been political on the island of Ireland for many hundreds of years. Unfortunately, party politicisation has not improved—in fact, it has deepened in recent years—and the SDLP is hopeful that this Bill will take the business of promoting and protecting language and culture out of such everyday thwarting and weaponisation. However, we do have very serious concerns about re-embedding it in the Executive Office, which over the last decade and more has become a place of veto and deadlock, where good ideas in Northern Ireland have been going to die. We will be seeking, by amendment, to address that to prevent delay and language provision being held hostage in future years.
Those provisions have to be put into legislation because of the commitment to protect language, on which there has been dither, delay and denial for decades of devolution. It is also correct that this should absolutely be done on the Floor of the Assembly. We would all wish that to be  the case, but it is also important to note that the Northern Ireland Assembly, to the best of my knowledge, has never delivered a piece of equality legislation.
Those who think that they are holding some imaginary line by undermining equality provisions should be aware that they are doing the opposite of what they think they are doing. They are making many people believe that the rights, lives and opportunities that they want are not available to them under devolution in the United Kingdom. Níor bhris focal maithfiacailriamh—a good word never broke a tooth—so I think it is appropriate that people find it within themselves to be positive about these provisions.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Claire Hanna: I would be delighted to do so—I would use my Ulster Scots and say, “Houl yer whisht, Jeffrey,” but I will let you speak.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Well, I will try not to be thran about it.
I welcome the approach that the hon. Lady is taking. In her, I see someone who lives the Irish language, who values it and sees it as an important part of her culture and identity, and I have no difficulty with that. She spoke about the importance of words. Does she agree with me—and I quote the words of Danny Morrison, the former publicity director for Sinn Féin—that every word spoken in Irish is
“another bullet…fired in the struggle for Irish freedom”?
It is that kind of use of the language as a political weapon that causes concern. I am not for a moment suggesting that the hon. Lady is guilty of that in any way, but does she agree that we need to move beyond that and get away from politicisation? Language is a means of communication. It should not be used as a political weapon.

Claire Hanna: I will come on to address exactly that politicisation, but it is also about the collective punishment that is applied to children learning Irish in the nursery school. Of course the right hon. Member knows that I would not support language like that, but neither do I damn all protection of Ulster Scots and Ulster British identity because of some words of Ulster Scots or Irish that may appear on a loyalist mural or drum. That is why we need those protections, so that people cannot deny everyday provisions because of the perceptions that they have. I should be delighted to come on to that, and I want to discuss how we build up the confidence of everyone in these cultural provisions by implementing things that were agreed many years ago and which could take some of the heat, poison and damage out of everyday politics.
A fair and wise point was made earlier about the need for things such as a sign language Act as well. It is a fact that the stop-start stand-off culture in which the Assembly has been bogged down over recent decades has damaged the wider rights and entitlements of everyone in Northern Ireland to decent public services and economic opportunities. Those who have withdrawn governance, in this stand-off or the previous one, which was ostensibly  over the Irish language, are doing far more to undermine rights and entitlements than a Bill such as this will ever do.
The measure is far from perfect, and it has been a long time coming. I would like to mention two of my Gaelgóirí colleagues, Patsy McGlone and Dominic Bradley, who tried to bring forward private Members’ legislation in 2008 and 2016, before it was introduced. At least we are on the path now, even if it falls short of what was promised at St Andrews—an Irish language Act based on the experience of Wales and the Republic of Ireland. This legislation is not that, and it is fair to say that it is very far from radical. Language in the Republic of Ireland and Wales thrives in part because it is underpinned and financed by a strategy to focus on promotion, because those nations have been able to proceed without the toxification that language and identity have experienced in our region. I really, really regret that language has become zero sum—if they win this, we lose this—like a lot of other things in our region. That is not unique to Northern Ireland or the Irish language, but we all have to work to counter it.

Julian Smith: It was key during the negotiation that neither of the commissioners had the right to promote, and the hon. Member’s party and others—including the DUP—were correct in ensuring that promotion was nowhere near the focus of the Bill.

Claire Hanna: The right hon. Member is right to clarify that, but we do need a promotion strategy. As someone with an interest in the language and who is inspired when I hear names and place names, if I want to read a council’s accounts, I go and do it as Béarla—I will read it in the English. The promotion is what will allow the language to be transmitted and to thrive, and the Bill is not as expansive as many people would wish it to be.
I want to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I really regret the suspicion of Irish by many Unionists, but I do not pretend not to understand the roots of it. Some of that is just about the experience that we have all had in our lives. Few state schools, which the majority of Protestant, Unionist and loyalist children would attend, promote Irish, and trips to the Republic, where Irish-language signs are normal, were not as commonplace. They probably did not spend their summers learning Irish in Rann na Feirste or Machaire Rabhartaigh, as I and friends of mine did. I therefore appreciate that some of it is about cultural experience; that in many cases people perceive Irish language as something to be used for a buttressing phrase in a political contribution; and that some perceive it as a manifestation of aggressive Irish nationalism, but that is not what it is to so many speakers.
Yes, no doubt there has been weaponisation in the past, but some of that is about the failure of political parties over decades to internalise and sell the concept of parity of esteem where it applies to culture, and to tar and tarnish an entire community of people because of the phraseology of others. The reality of the long war and the long peace that we have had is that “their” and “our” cultural archetypes are reinforced all the time with all the decades of suspicion and baggage that many people have. But we have an opportunity, through  legislation such as this and more, to fly by those nets, particularly to a generation for whom “us” and “them” does not mean as much as “all of us.”
As the right hon. Member said, we can make language about the richness of communication and heritage and not about an identity marker. That is why so many take such inspiration from the work of Linda Ervine and Turas—Irish for “Journey”—the project that she set up with the east Belfast mission of the Methodist Church. Linda has not changed who she is—she has not changed her identity or her aspirations—but she is connecting many hundreds of people from a Protestant background with their own history and the Irish language. She received an MBE from Her Majesty the Queen for her efforts in that work, where she has taken such a mature approach to these issues. Her views on Irish, like Ulster Scots, are rooted in a real understanding of the entwined nature of nationalist and Unionist history. She said:
“I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have a rich cultural identity, a mixture of native Irish and of the many peoples who made Ireland their home. This rich ancestry influenced our surnames, our place names and our everyday language. Our vernacular of hiberno English reflects this mixed identity. We are native…speakers whose English is littered with beautiful Scots and Gaelic words. The syntax of our speech reflects that of Gaelic. As a people, we are culturally rich, yet instead of embracing that wonderful cultural mix, we separate it into narrow divisive boxes and deny ourselves.”
Many of us should take on board her approach to language and many other things.
I also acknowledge the work of people such as the much-missed Aodán Mac Poilín, who was the director of the Ultach Trust, a cross-community language promotion agency, and an inspiration to me as a late learner of Irish, which I picked up in adulthood. His posthumously published collection of essays, “Our Tangled Speech”, is one of the most nuanced and perceptive books that I have ever read on Northern Irish politics and culture. He argued that to get the sustainable transmission of language, it needs to be embedded in public bodies and have the support of Government and other interest groups. He was also clear about the need to shift our attitudes and learn from our past. He had theories about how nationalists and Unionists have believed each other’s propaganda over the years and found themselves reacting to both the position that they think is being ascribed to them and their opponent’s ideological position, which he believed was why our debate has often got so extreme. He always perceived the Irish language to have been a victim of that. I think the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) would probably concur with a lot of that analysis
I also want to mention the work of the recently deceased Dr Roger Blaney, whose work “Presbyterians and the Irish Language” was a revelation to many people about the work done by so many of that denomination in Belfast to preserve and protect the language because it was at its most vulnerable. It is a matter of fact and the politics that the rights component of language has been a product of the withholding of support. Many Gaeilgeoirs I know over the years were not as bought into the concept of an Irish language Act as they were into that of promotion and the living language. It is a fact that what are seen as small-minded approaches to language and the cancellation of programmes has made people believe that it needs promotion.  Organically, the community of Irish speakers is growing in number and in breadth and that is a win for all of us.
We believe that this Bill will help to grow that wider embracing of language. Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine—it is in each other’s shadows that we grow. We are better when we all work together, and I hope that that is something that Members will keep in mind when we vote on the Bill.

Nigel Evans: I call Stephen Farry.

Stephen Farry: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I want to join others in passing on my condolences and sympathies to the families of those who sadly lost their lives in Creeslough and to the wider community. The tragedy they are currently dealing with is unthinkable.
On this occasion, I think it is appropriate to say a few words in Irish followed by the English translation. Tacaím leis an reachtaíocht seo. Tá sé an-tábhachtach Tá oidhreacht roinnte ag an nGaeilge agus Ultais i dTuaisceart Éireann. Déanfaidh muid ceiliúradh ar an oidhreacht sin. That is, I support this Bill. The Irish language and Ulster Scots are part of the shared heritage of Northern Ireland. We celebrate that heritage. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) has just said, that heritage can be seen in the place names and surnames that are evident right across the community in Northern Ireland. That very much cuts across the traditional divide.
The Bill delivers on a key commitment of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. That agreement broke the deadlock that had seen the institutions of the Good Friday agreement cease operation for almost three years. As is the case with the current impasse, my party did not believe that there was any justification for that impasse. However, it is a matter of record that frustrations around the non-delivery of legislation and other measures related to the Irish language and other language issues was a key factor in that stand-off. The achievement of a package of measures on language and culture was a key element in the breakthrough. Commitments to legislate for the Irish language and Ulster Scots go back much further, to the St. Andrew’s agreement of 2006, and reflect the more general commitments made in the Good Friday agreement of 1998.
Indeed, we want to see all aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement being delivered and a key element of that deal was the rightful expectation that the culture and language package would be a priority for the restored Executive and Assembly. It is a major disappointment and concern that that did not happen. Whenever I asked the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) to explain why, he rather flippantly discussed the issue of covid. Of course, I am aware that covid was a major issue for the world, but government did not grind to a halt in other places. A lot of other legislation happened in this place and, indeed, other legislation happened in the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Bills taken forward by his own ministerial colleagues. Frankly, there is and was no excuse for this measure not being done in the Assembly in a timely manner and that would have provided an opportunity  for a much more rounded discussion. That said, we will listen to and take on board the DUP’s comments and reflect on them in Committee. We want to get this as right as we can in this place.
It is a matter of regret that it falls to the Government to take the Bill through Parliament. Generally, it would be far better if matters of equality and human rights were addressed in the devolved space. That would be a characteristic of a mature and responsible democracy. As has been said, that delivery has generally not been the case over the past 20 years. We have to ask why there is a constant blockage. Tension is already emerging over the powers that the Secretary of State may take in relation to the Bill. That reflects a lack of confidence in that, even if the Bill were passed without the powers, the implementation would be stymied back in the devolved space. That is a source of frustration and the pretext for why we are where we are.
Accusations are made generally about interference in the devolved space. I want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly addressing the full spectrum of issues under its remit, including equality and human rights. However, I think this legislation can be justified as a matter of political necessity to ensure that we have a more solid foundation for what will hopefully soon be restored political institutions. Moreover, this is also a matter of the Government ensuring compliance, in respect of Northern Ireland, with the UK’s international human rights commitments, particularly on language.
I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about the weaponisation of the Irish language. We appreciate that some people have made uncalled-for comments, but I think that does a huge injustice to the vast majority of people who have been campaigning for Irish language rights over many years. In Belfast recently, we saw close to 20,000 people on the streets calling for those protections. People from all backgrounds and all walks of life want to see language protections in Northern Ireland extending both to Irish and Ulster Scots.

Carla Lockhart: Will the hon. Member give way?

Gavin Robinson: Will the hon. Member give way?

Stephen Farry: I will give way to the hon. Member for Belfast East first.

Gavin Robinson: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) might like to intervene. She was not demeaning or dismissing anybody who has campaigned for Irish. In fact, many of the campaigners who have campaigned for Irish language provision will equally acknowledge that their aspirations have been dampened and harmed by the irresponsible and politically naive approach of those who have indeed weaponised the Irish language.

Stephen Farry: The comments that were made are on the record and people can see them. However, we are in danger of getting ourselves into difficulty if we over-focus on the particular points that have been made by some republican activists about the Irish language. That is not where the vast majority of people are. I note that the hon. Lady did not give way during her comments, but nevertheless, I am happy to.

Carla Lockhart: The hon. Gentleman did not ask me to give way and I have taken many interventions from him in the past. No one can deny in this House that the issue has been weaponised. That has been done by a small number of individuals, but it has been weaponised, and I think we can all accept that fact. He talks about equality. Will he go further and support the amendments that we will introduce on the fact that the Ulster Scots commissioner will not have the same powers as the Irish language commissioner? Our amendments will aim to bring that in line.

Stephen Farry: I will say two things. If we can all agree a self-denying ordinance, let us move past the comments about weaponising language and relegate those to the small minority of people who have said that. Let us focus on those who are generally asking for protections in Northern Ireland for the right reasons.
On the hon. Lady’s second point, yes, I am happy to look at the DUP amendments. I am not prepared to give a commitment until we see them, but we will approach this issue with a genuine open mind in that regard. It is worth stressing that there is a different context relating to how Irish and Ulster Scots are recognised by the UK in terms of reference to the various international treaty bodies. It is not entirely a like-for-like comparison. None the less, we are happy to look at the points that she made about the powers.
That point leads me on to another point that is important to stress. There are those who would wish the Bill to go much further in its level of protection; the hon. Member for Belfast East referred to some issues that have been mentioned previously but have not been taken forward. Equally, there are some who may wish to dilute it. I think it is important that we reflect and respect the spirit and indeed the letter of what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach as far as practically possible, because we are conscious that that is the political agreement. Anything else, in terms of major amendments, would primarily be something for the Northern Ireland Assembly to take forward.
There are a number of issues that I think need to be teased out in Committee, in addition to some of the issues that have been mentioned. I note that Ulster Scots has been designated as an ethnicity by the Government. I think there needs to be some scrutiny of that, because there is some debate as to whether demand or the wider rationale warrants it. I am not sure that there is complete consensus among Ulster Scots activists on that line.
There is also concern about moving from having a single director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression towards having more of a multi-member commission approach. Sadly, that brings up fears about a bit of a carve-up happening in relation to that office, given the history of other public appointments in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), that we need more transparency around what is happening with the Castlereagh Foundation. He also made a point about the use of the word “sensitivities” as a potential qualifier in relation to the exercise of language rights. I would perhaps suggest that we need to look instead at a more rights-based balance in taking that forward.
There are potential amendments to be considered in relation to the extension of what is meant by “public authorities”, moving from what at the moment refers entirely to those that fall within the devolved space. Reference was made to what happens with some applications within Northern Ireland, but with non-devolved functions, for example, Swansea offers bilingual driving licences in English and Welsh. There is a desire among some people in Northern Ireland to see them offered in Irish or Ulster Scots as well, so perhaps that could be addressed in an amendment.
I think that there needs to be some degree of sensitivity around the safeguards issue and that we should look at the issues around timescales for interventions. I do not relish the concept of Ministers intervening—I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm that the intention is not to be intervening all the time—but the contrary fear is that, if there is an impasse, it could become prolonged. It would be useful to have some timeline for when interventions should happen.
Finally, I want to respond to some comments about the background to where we are and the debate about culture and language in Northern Ireland. There has been a lot of misinformation, shall we say, and there are a lot of tropes out there about what this would mean for the fundamental reorganisation of society, from road signs through to employment quotas. None of those things has happened, because this was a negotiated package through the New Decade, New Approach system. That is where the value of negotiations came to the fore: in ensuring that there was a balanced package in that regard.
This is about public bodies responding to the needs of their client base in a proportionate way. It is not about a radical transformation of Northern Ireland society. To go back to what I said at the start, we have to accept that both Irish and Ulster Scots are part of the mixed overlapping fabric of what is our shared society in Northern Ireland, so whenever we talk about protecting what we have in Northern Ireland, protecting the language heritage and ensuring that we continue to promote those languages have to be very much a part of our shared and integrated future.

Hywel Williams: First, may I acknowledge the trepidation that I feel in standing up to talk about this matter? I hope that I can make a positive contribution about some of the lessons that we have learned in Wales over many, many years from addressing these issues.
I approach this matter today with a proper sense of humility. I have never been involved in Northern Ireland politics.

Stephen Farry: You are very welcome.

Hywel Williams: There is enough at home, actually! I do not really want to address the political aspects in any way, really; as I said, I want to share some of the fruits of our experience.
Obviously, no two situations are the same, and the situation with Welsh is very different from the situation with Irish, Ulster Scots or any other language used in these isles. What I think we can give, however, is a certain sense of reassurance that the language issue can be depoliticised to a degree, which, in fact, is liberating for all the parties involved. I am very much a glass-half-full  person. At the last election in Wales, even the United Kingdom Independence party managed to include some Welsh in its pamphlets, which says something about the degree of depoliticisation of the language there. We have developed a provision for all traditions, including the tradition of speaking Welsh.
By now, we have also avoided some of the pitfalls. I will say a little about language law, because I think there are pitfalls there which should be avoided—particularly in relation to the Welsh Language Act 1967—but let me first acknowledge some of the contributions made by Members sitting behind me, and the gut-wrenching emotional elements of language change. Writing in the 1960s, the Welsh philosopher J.R. Jones said something very interesting. He said that some people had experienced leaving their countries, turning their backs on their countries and perhaps not coming back, but he knew of an experience that was even more gut-wrenching: the feeling that you are not even leaving your country, but your country is leaving you—that change is somehow a threat. He was referring at the time to the decline in the number of Welsh speakers to about one in five. We are in a somewhat different situation now as we look forward to the census: it seems likely that the proportion will be one in three. Given our target of 1 million Welsh speakers, there is a long way to go and a great deal of work to do to take people with us.
One of the differences relating to Welsh is that it has always been a language for official business. Traditional Welsh law was codified as long ago as 950 by my namesake Hywel Dda—or Hywel the Good: that is something that has been thrown in my face for many years! However, in 1284 the Statute of Rhuddlan took away the Welsh criminal code and replaced it with the Norman criminal code. The civil code was replaced in 1535 and 1542 by the “Acts of Union”— the Laws in Wales Acts—including the penal clauses, one of which states that
“no Person or Persons that use the Welsh Speech or Language, shall… enjoy any manner Office or Fees”
in the King’s realm. That is the sort of exclusion to which the Welsh language was subject at the time. There was also a reference to “sinister Usages and Customs”. That illustrates some of the emotional elements surrounding a language that was seen as strange, dangerous and difficult. As a younger person, I used to glory in the fact that I had a “sinister usage and custom” in that I spoke Welsh, but those laws were finally repealed in 1993. That is the extent of their history.
The Welsh Language Act 1967, to which I said I would refer, introduced the concept of equal validity. One of the pitfalls that I mentioned is the provision that, in the case of divergence,
“the English text shall prevail”.
That sounds quite reasonable until we think about how it might be applied. If the Welsh law says “Mae dau a dau yn bedwar” and the English law says “Two and two are five”, it will be five, not four. That is the situation that pertained until the 1993 Act, which established the Welsh Language Board.
We have now reached a position in which all matters involving the Welsh language have been devolved. I do not think I should really be standing here talking about Northern Irish affairs—I think that this should have  been decided in Northern Ireland—and I certainly do not wish to extend my contribution beyond this Second Reading debate.
In 2009, I was part of a Committee here that looked at devolving the Welsh language entirely by a legislative competence order. That Committee was made up of Members from Wales and we learned a great deal about co-operation across parties and the depoliticisation of the issue. The Committee was chaired by Professor Hywel Francis from the Labour party. I was a member, and I worked closely with him, with Mark Williams from the Liberal Democrat party and also with the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who, although I disagree with him entirely on most things, is also my right hon. Friend. We were able to meet across the table and decide, after a great deal of careful consideration, that the language issue should be devolved entirely to the Assembly in Wales, as it then was. It is now the Senedd. That led to the current state of play in terms of language in Wales. The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 gave official status to the Welsh language and set up the commission, along with various other things that hon. Members will be familiar with. That is the process that I would want to see in respect of matters in Northern Ireland. It should be decided in Belfast.
I want to say a bit about the practical outcome of having language—knowledge emancipates all languages and traditions—and to look at how things are in Wales now. I know that the use of language in courts of law is not part of this Bill, but in Wales—in the Crown court in Caernarfon, for example, which I am familiar with, and elsewhere—Welsh can be used in court without any special preparation. It is just a normal part of life; it has been normalised, which is a word I think the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) used. It is becoming unremarkable. In that respect, it allows people to address other issues that are of equal importance. We also have all-Welsh hearings with simultaneous translation, which has become normalised. It has a cost, certainly, but it enables people to use the language of their choice. I am in favour, as Conservative Members are, of people being afforded the greatest choice possible. That includes cases of the most serious kind. Murder cases are heard in Welsh in Caernarfon and elsewhere.
Turning to one entirely practical consequence, my interest is in social policy, social work and work with children, and the courts can now acknowledge that the language of the home might not be English and that children can be heard in the language that they speak at home. Again, that is not in the Bill, but I think enabling children to give their evidence in the most acute cases in the language of their choice is just a matter of good law and good practice.
In Wales, there has been a long process, not an event. There is always a temptation to see any piece of law or social development as the last barricade that must be defended at all costs. As I have outlined briefly in my speech, the process is best looked at by the people directly involved; but it is a process none the less. I hope that my speech will go some way towards reassuring the sceptical and giving hope to the optimistic.

Jim Shannon: It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am proud to be an Ulster Scots speaker. The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is no longer present, but he referred to instances of children in Scotland speaking Scots Gaelic—this probably happened in Northern Ireland with Ulster Scots as well—and how it would be beaten out of them. I went to Ballywalter Primary School—that was not yesterday, by the way; it was a long time ago, back in the ’60s—and certain things stick in the memory when we look back over the history and the years. This is one of those things. Mr Whisker was the principal of the school, and he asked us some questions and we had to fill in the answers. I went home and spoke to my granny Hamilton, who came from Clady, outside Strabane in County Tyrone. I asked her, as you do when you are six or seven years old, “Granny, what are the answers to these things?” She filled them in, in Ulster Scots, because that is how we spoke at that time, and I took them into school the next day. Mr Whisker is now dead and gone, and I never speak ill of anyone, but he marked it and said, “This isn’t English.” I said, “This is Ulster Scots, Mr Whisker”, and he said, “That is not how we do it in this school.” It is the way things were in those days, and this is not a criticism, but I got a clip around the ear, which I took home to my granny or my mum and reappraised the situation. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, the Ulster Scots that I had as a child in Ballywalter in the 1960s was beaten out of me in every way.
I gave my oath in Ulster Scots a few weeks ago, and there is nothing quite like expressing yourself in that beautiful language. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) also gave his oath in Ulster Scots. I have given mine in Ulster Scots on four occasions—2015, 2017, 2019 and four weeks ago. I am very pleased to do that, because it is who I am. I am an Ulster Scot, and I am proud to be an Ulster Scot. That is not a political statement; it is who I am. That is how I see language, and it is contained in every proposal I make on Ulster Scots.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) is not present, but he said he was scunnered—that is the word he used. Well, scunnered means fed up. I hope he is not fed up, but the word in Ulster Scots is glaidsome or blithe. I am glaidsome or blithe, but I am certainly not scunnered when it comes to speaking Ulster Scots. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) is also not scunnered in speaking the Irish language, as she did very well. She made an excellent speech, as did others.
I researched the census online, and the number of Ulster Scots speakers has gone up by 50,000 in 10 years—from 140,000 to 190,000. That is 10.4% of the population. I am not saying anything else, but it is a fact that the number of Irish language speakers was up by 1.7%, whereas we were up by a significant number.
I am an advocate for Ulster Scots, and I encourage schools such as Portavogie Primary School and Derryboy Primary School outside Saintfield to teach it. I love to delve into the poetry and history of the language, and the hon. Member for Gordon referred to the arts. It is the poetry, the stories and the flow of the language that I love.
I am for Ulster Scots, but I am not for this Bill unless changes are made. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) knows that I have the highest respect for him. We came into this place together, and we hung about together on our first day. We got our photograph taken on the steps in Westminster Hall, and we had a good chance to talk and engage. I understand that he does what his heart tells him to do. That is the sort of person he is. I hope he will take on board our constructive points as we try to move forward.
The Ulster Scots language and culture is alive in my constituency of Ards and Strangford. I sat on Ards Borough Council a long time ago, having first been elected in 1985. I am not saying I am better than anyone else, because I am not, but along with others I was instrumental in bringing Ulster Scots names to many villages, with the agreement of the people. Greyabbey is Greba, Ballywalter is Whitkirk, Ballyhalbert is Talbotstoun, and Portavogie is St Andrews. Those names were added because people wanted it to happen. It is about moving forward in a constructive, positive way that brings people with us. I would love that to be our central focus.
When I was at Ards Borough Council, which is now Ards and North Down Borough Council, we had a sign saying “Fair fae ye to the Ards”, which means “Welcome to the Ards”. Those names and welcome signs, introduced way back in the 1990s and 2000s, are a simple expression of our language. Philip Robinson—or Robeinson, as we call him in Ulster Scots—lives on Hard Breid Raa in Greba. He speaks Ulster Scots with a fluency and flow, from a love of the language. He has written a number of books, which we are pleased to see. I make this point because it is important to do so. I have talked about what we did in the villages of Ballywalter and others along the Ards peninsula. I say gently to Newry, Mourne and Down District Council that political signs were put up in Irish in streets in Saintfield in my constituency when the people of those streets did not want them. The point I am making is: you have to bring people along with you. You don’t try to put this down their throats in a way that has the adverse and reverse effect. We have to engage with local communities and do this right.
It was always understood that the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition would not have the same functions. That was in order to meet the different priorities and needs of the Unionist and nationalist communities, so that each would be provided with a commissioner that was equally meaningful for the respective purposes. It is self-evident that in order for the functions of the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British commissioner, although different, to be of equal value to those of the Irish language commissioner, the functions must be equally robust and enforceable as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner in order to provide something of equal value to the Unionist community. I want to make it clear that I want to see a language Bill that comes through here that respects other traditions and other languages. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) spoke just before me—I hope I pronounced his constituency correctly—and we have seen the success he has had there; what they have done in Wales is incredible, and it has come about with the co-operation of the people. We need to do this with the co-operation of the people. It is really important that that happens in order to provide something of equal value to the Unionist community.
We are therefore deeply concerned that although the Bill requires a public authority to have regard to the Irish language commissioner no such obligation exists in relation to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, and try to understand where we are coming from, what we are trying to say and why it is important to get this right—I say that to him gently. That is what all my colleagues on our Benches are trying to say, including my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), whom we are to hear from soon. They will all say this over and again.
This arrangement transparently violates the parity of esteem principle by giving the Unionist community something of less value. What sort of Bill brings in something that is of less value for the community that I represent? It is Ulster Scots, but some have different cultures as well and feel that this must be equal. In what other country would this blatant bias be not only accepted, but enforced? This is what happened through the House of Lords and it is where we are with this Bill today. I could mention certain countries, but Members would certainly not like the parallels. I also would not do that because I know that these are not the Government’s intentions. Little wonder we were shocked when in the Lords the Government sought to defend this violation of the principle of parity of esteem on the basis of three things. I will cite them and explain why, with respect, the Government need to get this sorted.
First, in the other place the Government suggested that this approach is required by New Decade, New Approach, but its text does not address the detail of enforcement with respect to either the Irish language commissioner or the Ulster Scots Ulster British commissioner. This does not make it wrong to provide an enforcement mechanism for the Irish language commissioner’s functions through a statutory duty to “have regard”. Indeed, one could argue that the requirement for this is implicit as it would be absurd—DUP Members believe this—to create commissioners and not to require the public authorities they engage with to have regard to them. However, in order to maintain parity of esteem, this provision must plainly also be applied equally to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner’s functions. It is very clear where we are.
Secondly, the Government Front Bencher in another place defended this arrangement by suggesting that, in addition to having different functions, it was appropriate for commissioners to have completely different powers in relation to these functions and that, for example, the bodies addressed by both commissioners should have a duty to have regard to only one of the commissioners, but not the other. I mean, really? Why has that not been understood by the Government? Specifically, as bodies that the commissioners address—to be clear, these are the only bodies that the commissioners address, as the Government confirmed on Report—public authorities are required to have regard to the Irish language commissioner but are not required to have regard to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner.
Secretary of State, that is a key issue, and that is where we are coming from. Such an arrangement is self-evidently indefensible and insulting to the community that I represent—the people of Ards and Strangford,  and indeed those across the Ulster Scots-speaking community in all of Northern Ireland—as is the suggestion that the Unionist community could be bought off with just the image of a commissioner, while the nationalist community is afforded the reality of a commissioner. We have the image, but they have the reality. How can that be?
Thirdly, the Government suggested that we agreed to have two commissioners engaging public authorities, which would be required to have regard only to the Irish language commissioner and not the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner, on the basis of the draft legislation produced around the time of the NDNA. That is, however, incorrect. We agreed to the text of the NDNA, but not the draft legislation before us today. They are two different things. I do not know how this could happen. How can we have these talks and agree something, and then something else comes forward? It is completely wrong for the Government to try to deploy a constitutional sleight of hand against us all by trying to spin something that was not in the agreement as if it was. Even if the Bill were as much a part of the agreement as the agreement itself, simply asserting the text of the Bill would only serve to highlight the difficulty, in the sense that the agreement text and the draft text of the Bill at present are different.
In the absence of any statutory obligation on public authorities to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner, and while such an obligation does exist in relation to the Irish language commissioner, although we may have the form of two similarly important commissioners, in reality we have one, and one only. As though that were not enough, while the Government have recognised that the two commissioners’ functions must be different in order to provide something that is supposedly of equal value to each community, the Bill treats Unionists as second-class citizens by giving them the right to complain to their commissioner about failures by public bodies relating to only part of their commissioner’s function, while giving nationalists the opportunity to complain to their commissioner across the full spectrum of his or her functions.
Equal treatment does not start with this kind of Bill. Again, the Minister in another place suggested that we agreed to this bizarre arrangement on the basis that, in addition to agreeing to NDNA, we had also agreed to draft legislation that gives the Ulster Scots commissioner less authority in their functions than that accorded the Irish language commissioner, when we had done no such thing. The Bill before the House today is unequal and certainly does not treat us fairly.
The Unionist community is not stupid. Let us be quite clear: we understand what we see before us, and we have expressed that in this Chamber. I cannot stress enough the critical importance of Government amendments to restore parity of esteem on both these points. If the Bill is not amended to address that—something that we, our party and I, and the Ulster-Scots Agency have called for consistently over the years—it will entrench discrimination, shouting the message loud and clear that, while the nationalist community should be afforded the reality of a commissioner to address their priorities, the Unionist community, to which those of us on the DUP Benches belong, must make do with just the  image of a commissioner. We will be tabling amendments to correct these problems and will ask for an urgent meeting with the Minister between now and Committee to discuss the matter.

Steven Baker: I would certainly be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I am confident that he knows that I did write to offer meetings shortly after I took up my post.

Jim Shannon: I am not surprised that the Minister of State has replied so positively. Yes, I look forward to those meetings, and, obviously, my party will be more than happy to engage with them as well. All I say is just do these things before we get to the point that we are at right now. The Unionist people are tired of being treated as second-class citizens by a Government whom they respect and whom I respect as well. Can that respect not flow both ways? Apologies fly to the nationalists, and yet there is no apology for the massive mistake the Government made in the withdrawal agreement. People in my constituency of Strangford come back from work to a cold home, worried about how they will pay their rent or their mortgage as well as for the petrol to get them to work.
I have read the explanatory notes and estimated that the annual cost of the three new authorities will be some £9 million. In order to prevent these offices from being exploited for political purposes by one community—[Interruption.] I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Speaker. Do you know what my constituents in Strangford want, Mr Speaker? They want the NHS sorted out. They want the waiting lists for cancer organised. They want to know when they are getting their cataract operations and when they are getting their dental treatment. They also want to know why, when they want to go to the dentist in Newtownards, they find that there are no dentists that will take on new customers. One of my constituents had to travel to Dundalk to get their teeth done. My constituents want to know why new builds in the education sector are not taking place. They want to know why the new building for Glastry College in my constituency will not be built when the £9 million would near enough build it. They want to know about the Ballynahinch bypass, which could be built for a lot less than that. I make these points because it is important to put down a marker. When it comes to spending money, my constituents want the money to be spent in a positive fashion.

Scott Benton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good argument, advocating the fact that his constituents want investment in public services rather than in costly translation services for a second language. He will have heard the Government talking over the past few weeks about a bonfire of the quangos. Have we not heard about that before? Does he not find it curious and quite surprising therefore that this Bill would create yet another quango in the case of the office of identity and cultural expression? Does he think that that is good use of public money at the present time?

Jim Shannon: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman’s point of view and understand the reasons for it, but we hope to have a language Bill that respects our point of view. That is what we are about, but I thank him for his intervention.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Gentleman has actually got it wrong? It is not one quango, but three quangos. There will be a commissioner for Irish language, a commissioner for Ulster Scots, and the office of identity and cultural expression. This will be a costly exercise.

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend and colleague for his intervention. Yes, there is no doubt that there could be a number of bonfires, not just on 11 July, but at other times as well.
In conclusion, how do I look my constituents in the eye and say that all of this money is spent not to make a difference to the quality of their lives, not to make a brighter future for their children, but as a clear, blatant and horrifyingly expensive sop to a political agenda. I want to look them in the eye and know that I have done all that I can to bring the right legislation through this Bill at the right time and for the right reason. The promotion of culture and heritage is not a bad thing, but the politicisation of language and the use of it as a weapon must be prevented. In its current state, this Bill simply enables that politicisation and therefore requires urgent changes. I look forward to the Minister of State giving us that meeting so that we can make the changes that we all want to see for the people of Northern Ireland, and especially for the people that I represent.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of the new Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A total of 459 votes were cast, one of which was invalid. The counting went to three rounds. There were 441 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached therefore was 221 votes. The winner is Alicia Kearns elected with 241 votes. She will take up her post immediately and I congratulate her on her election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.

Alicia Kearns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I thank the Clerks of the House, who ran a very successful election. I also thank all those who stood for election. I hope they know how much I respect them and how I hope to continue working with them as Chair, because I hope we can work together more as a House. I also thank Tom Tugendhat, who is now elevated to far superior places, but was a fantastic Chairman of the Select Committee. Most of all, I say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who gave their support to me. It means everything to me. I hope to do them proud; I hope I can represent all their interests and I am here now to do as they bid. Thank you ever so much.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just a gentle reminder that it is not by name; he is the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). Do not worry about it. On that basis, let us go to Paul Girvan.

Paul Girvan: It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this Bill. I am glad to see that it is not a stand-alone Irish language Bill, as was being  peddled by those who wanted to have it as such. However, the identities issue within this Bill causes concern, because there is an imbalance in how things are dealt with.
I understand that both commissioners have certain powers, but one seems to have more power than the other. By that, I am saying that the Ulster Scots commissioner will really be there as a tick-box exercise, as opposed to somebody who can effectively take complaints forward and recommend that they be addressed by the public authorities that are being used. I appreciate that there are a large number of public authorities in Northern Ireland to be consulted—I think it is somewhere around 70-plus—but all of them have different interpretations of what they have to do.
I use this as an example: local authorities in Northern Ireland have off their own bat started to go down the route of language signage for street names. In doing so, they have created a problem. Many people may not understand the nuances of this, but it is seen as territory marking. If someone goes into a certain area and sees Irish language signs, they will say, “Well, that’s an area I will not be buying a house in, because being from my community I will not be happy or safe there.” That is another area where division is being driven into our community, and Irish-language signs are being used as such by councils.
There was mention made by Members from my own party of those who have removed emblems and pictures of our monarchs from our council buildings. All those things have been stripped out to try to make a neutral environment, yet some are still putting what I call some of their republican agenda and driving it forward. Those measures and the powers that are supposedly within this Bill, such as the language aspect, need to be addressed.
I will say a wee bit about the language aspect and bilingualism with Ulster Scots. That is not necessarily their priority. They have areas they want to focus on, and one of those might be looking not just at the art and literature aspect, but the culture and heritage aspect. Our heritage needs to be respected. I feel very much that we are under attack not only from this Bill, but from those who put in place the protocol and made those people who live in Northern Ireland—whether you believe it or not—feel like second-class citizens. That is what is being portrayed here, because we see our Ulster Scots heritage and culture being treated as second class, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned.
I also have concerns about the cost associated with the implementation of this legislation. There might well be money associated with setting up the office of the commissioners for both languages and the shared services in relation with that, but I have a problem with the cost impact on each Government Department of the implementation of aspects of what is put forward in this Bill. Some control needs to be put in to ensure that the Bill does not run away with itself.
I, for one, come from the Ulster Scots background, as many Members will know, but I know and am friendly with fluent Irish speakers who were brought up as Protestants in Donegal and had to learn Irish as part of the culture where they lived. Language was used not as a cultural identity issue in Northern Ireland but as a weapon, and it continues to be.
I appreciate that some people try to steer away from that, but as the leader of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), mentioned, Danny Morrison said way back in the 1980s that each word spoken in Irish is a shot fired in relation to Irish liberty and freedom, so I think we need to be very careful about how the law is interpreted by those within the Unionist and Protestant communities. They do not necessarily buy into Linda Ervine’s approach on this whole thing. I do not discount that she is there for the right reasons, but let us be honest: a large section of the Unionist community do not buy into that agenda because they believe that it has been used as such.
I believe that we need to use the opportunity in Committee to table amendments that will make the Bill acceptable. I am not saying that it is not acceptable as it is, but our party’s amendments should be listened to, taken on board and respected, as we feel very much that we are being treated as second-class citizens because of the Bill’s imbalance. It does not necessarily take into account the so-called “parity of esteem” that is peddled by everybody. That term is used to suit an agenda on many occasions. On this occasion, we will use it because we do not believe that we have parity of esteem in how the legislation has been measured out. I want to ensure that that is taken on board.
I appreciate that the Minister of State has listened to us and agreed to have a meeting. We will have that meeting—we want to put our message across, and we will do so—and we will also table amendments to ensure that we get the redress that is required to make the Bill acceptable. It is wrong to say that we accepted this when NDNA was brought forward. This legislation is not what we agreed to, and we have fought it tooth and nail the whole way through the process. We will continue to do so until we get that redress.

Nigel Evans: Before I call the Front-Bench speakers, if there is to be a Division, I would welcome the names of the Tellers for the Noes. I call Tonia Antoniazzi.

Tonia Antoniazzi: I thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions to this interesting and lively debate. It is perhaps unusual to say that discussing a matter in Parliament should serve to depoliticise it, but that is what the Bill rightly aims to do, by creating structures and legal protections for these languages—not simply preserving them but promoting them to and for everyone in Northern Ireland. Protections for national and cultural identity principles should be welcomed, ensuring that the Irish language and the language, art and literature of the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition are recognised not as the property of one section of the community or one political outlook, but as an important part of Northern Ireland’s rich and diverse cultural heritage.
I note some of the conversations that have been had in the debate about language and growing up with a language. My father’s parents were first-language Italian speakers, but they never spoke Italian to him, and my mother did not speak Welsh because it was not the done  thing. We have heard people talk about Polish, Chinese and sign language in Northern Ireland—those are all very important.
Before coming to this place, I spent 20 years of my life as a modern foreign languages teacher who grew up in Wales and did not learn Welsh. I am very proud of my Welsh culture and heritage and am very embarrassed to say that I did not embrace learning the language as a child because I had the opportunity to do other things. However, as a language teacher in Wales, I embraced Welsh because it brings communities together. As a teacher, you look at the language, your history and all the links of multilingualism and bring them together to create a positive community; that is what needs to be done here. Open your eyes to the opportunities and celebrate languages and your history together. I emphasise that because it is so important in these times.
As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I cannot help but compare the Bill to the radical changes that we have seen over the past decade with regard to the Welsh language. Within my lifetime, what was an issue of fierce political division has become a normal part of day-to-day life. The words used by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) were, “It is now unremarkable.” Is not that how it should be?
Every child learns Welsh in school. It is my great regret that my son never went to a Welsh-medium school, because that opportunity to be bilingual is a genuine gift. The ability to access public services in Welsh is enshrined in law. Legislation is brought and debated bilingually in the Senedd. You will hear Welsh in the city centre of Swansea or the smallest village in north Wales. It is unremarkable. There is, of course, still debate around the language today.
Earlier we heard it said that finances could be used elsewhere. That argument should not be weaponised against language. We want to remove that aspect, because language is so very important. Will the Minister, with the Secretary of State, commit to a timescale for the Bill? I would be grateful if he also addressed the questions about resourcing for the sector that have been asked by the Ulster-Scots Agency.
As colleagues have said, the Bill was born from drafts that were due to be taken forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is regrettable that this legislation is being debated here, rather than in Stormont, but the Government are to be commended for bringing it forward and ensuring that commitments made in the NDNA agreement are honoured.
The bringing forward of this long called-for legislation is, along with a marked change in attitude regarding renegotiation of the protocol, a welcome change in tone and action. I hope it represents an end to the culture of missed deadlines and broken promises that has characterised much of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland —an approach that has only added to political instability and uncertainty.
Colleagues have spoken of the Bill’s foundations being rooted in the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement but, as Lord Murphy of Torfaen astutely noted in his contribution to the discussion in the other place, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is not something one can pick and choose from; it is a package. And the key part of that package is a functioning Assembly and Executive. Those are the institutions where this debate,  and the scrutiny of this legislation, should be taking place, but as that is not possible, the Government are right to uphold commitments made to people in Northern Ireland, and the Labour party supports this legislation’s swift passage.

Steven Baker: What a debate it has been. It has been really excellent—wide-ranging; at times hopeful and optimistic; at times reflective and reassuring; at times, it must be said, fearful and disappointed. But it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to such a debate on such a sensitive subject.
The Bill, as has been said, will implement the draft legislation associated with the New Decade, New Agreement deal, which all parties signed up to. I listened very carefully to the speeches and will return to them in a moment. I really share hon. Members’ hopes that these measures will be implemented in full by a future First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in a dynamic and timely manner, to help take Northern Ireland forward beyond these debates.
Yesterday I engaged with a range of language groups, which I found extremely helpful. I particularly want to thank Conradh na Gaeilge, Foras na Gaeilge, Linda Ervine of the Turas language programme—who has already been mentioned—Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, and the Ulster-Scots Agency.
Before I get into individual contributions, there have been some points of general agreement among all Members: the necessity of carrying forward the agreement that had been reached through NDNA, a lament that this House must pass this legislation and, of course, agreement on the extreme sensitivity of it. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that I, like the Secretary of State and everyone else in the House, share the great sense of loss and sorrow about the explosion in Creeslough. It is an absolute tragedy, and I put on the record the Government’s thanks to the Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service for all they did to help out.
As I hope to elaborate on, this is a conversation about the future, and the future that we are creating for ourselves. If the Front Benchers will allow me, I will begin by responding to what the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said, because like him, I approach this subject with a degree of trepidation and humility. I originally come from Cornwall. The Cornish language has been resuscitated since I left; I do not know any Cornish, but of course I do not have to pursue my Cornish roots, because my parents come from Hampshire. Nevertheless, I can see the great merits of people wishing to pursue their roots, and I know that today will be a great day of celebration for many people—I saw that in particular with Conradh na Gaeilge—because they love the language, its roots and where it takes them. That is a point that I will come back to.
The hon. Member for Arfon made the point that this has been liberating in Wales. As the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, he used the word “unremarkable.” He talked about depoliticisation, and that is my ambition. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) mentioned Linda Ervine. I hope that she will not mind me saying that I was really moved by the efforts that the Turas language programme is making to  teach Unionists Irish—Unionists who recognise that they do not have to go back too many generations to find that their ancestors, too, were speaking Irish. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, and I am grateful to him; that means so much. Look at the conversation we have had in the House—so much hurt; layers upon layers of hurt over decades. People have been insulted on both sides. I have listened to Ulster Scots saying that they have been demeaned, and Irish speakers saying that their language has been demeaned. This just cannot go on. We are the authors of our future.
I do not need to repeat the points that have been made about the weaponisation of language; I will just say that someone said to me yesterday, “We are building bridges; politicians are burning them behind us.” That should be a challenge to us all. Of course, the sorts of politicians who weaponise language as advancing nationalism have let the public down. All of us face the challenge of working out what future we are going to write, so I am grateful for the opportunity to begin my return to the Dispatch Box by agreeing with the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) asked me some specific questions, including about human rights and the connected classrooms programme. That programme is an important commitment, and officials continue to explore avenues of progress to deliver that commitment and facilitate the establishment of the programme. I hope to be in a position to update the House on progress shortly.
On the Castlereagh Foundation, I thank the former First Minister Arlene Foster, who chaired the advisory committee, and the rest of the committee. The advice was requested by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and the advisory committee was unable to support the progress of the UK Government commitment to Castlereagh at the time within the powers available to the Secretary of State. That led to the amendment of the legislation.
Turning to our general approach and human rights, the approach we are taking is consistent with the draft legislation published alongside NDNA; it really is for OICE to implement this in practice. Although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may direct OICE, this matter would be transferred to it, and would be for it to take forward.
I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made an extremely well-informed speech. He picked up on the point about the Ulster-Scots Agency. We have received a number of representations about amendments, including from the Ulster-Scots Agency, and if I may, I will on this point turn to the request for amendments from DUP Members.
I have to say that we have listened to people request amendments to go further on the Irish language side, and the DUP has made very strong representations today. What the Government have tried to do, recognising that this really should have been taken through in the Assembly, is to stay absolutely faithful to the draft legislation. I am just slightly conscious that, if we do open the Bill up to amendments, we will hear many calls for reciprocity and a whole series of amendments one way or another.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say that I hear what he says about the need for parity in powers. I absolutely look forward to meeting him and his colleagues, and going through in detail how they think there has been some shortcoming. It is vitally important that we carry people with us, because I think this could be a great moment for moving on and achieving what has been achieved in Wales—depoliticising language. I think that would be a very good thing, and I look forward to meeting him, but I will give way to him briefly if he wishes.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister of State for giving way. The thrust of our request to him—in a very kindly but also very firm manner—is about the fact that the Irish language commissioner has clout, but the Ulster Scots commissioner does not have that clout. It is a visual issue. I made the point earlier that for those who love the Irish language, it is the language that is the main thrust of what they are about, but for Ulster Scots it is about all the other things. It has the history, the art, the stories, the poetry and the music—pipe bands have been mentioned, for instance—and they are just some of those things. When it comes to the discussions we are going to have about those things, I hope we can have equality. Let us have a state of equality. I want to be as equal as anybody else. I do not want to be in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, where some people are more equal than others. Well, I am not, and neither is anyone else on these Benches.

Steven Baker: I am most grateful. On step-in powers, can I just say, as I said in an intervention, that the Government would not wish to intervene routinely in devolved matters? The use of the powers here and elsewhere in the Bill would require the most careful consideration. The Government’s decision to include these powers was not taken lightly, but progress must be made to ensure that political stasis in Northern Ireland does not further frustrate this legislation. As some of the people I met said to me, they have waited a very long time for this moment.
I do not wish to take up disproportionate time in this debate—I know Members have many matters to discuss with me in meetings subsequently, before we come to further stages—so I will conclude by saying that this has been an extremely good debate, and I am very grateful to all Members who have participated. If I could say one other thing it is this: let us please use this moment to have a new beginning for Northern Ireland on the issue of language—a new beginning that people from all parts of the communities can celebrate, and one that can help us all write a more positive future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 380, Noes 4.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

IDENTITY AND LANGUAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS]: PROGRAMME

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.

IDENTITY AND LANGUAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS]: MONEY

King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TODAY)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Penny Mordaunt relating to Voting by Proxy (Amendment and Extension) not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, or at 7.00pm, whichever is the later; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Question agreed to.

Voting by Proxy  (Amendment and Extension)

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Procedure Committee, Proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, HC 383; and the Government Response.]

Penny Mordaunt: I beg to move,
That:
(1) this House
(a) believes that Members experiencing serious long-term illness or injury should be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy, under a pilot scheme issued by the Speaker and reviewed by the Procedure Committee;
(b) directs the Speaker to amend the scheme governing the operation of proxy voting in accordance with paragraphs 1-40 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 383, on Proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall; and
(c) directs the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the temporary amendment to Standing Order No. 39A no later than 17 March 2023.
(2) the following amendments to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made:
(a) in paragraph 2, delete “absence from the precincts of the House for”;
(b) in paragraph 2, delete “childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child” and insert—
“(a) childbirth;
(b) care of an infant or newly adopted child; and
(c) complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”; and
(c) delete paragraph 7.
(3) the following amendment to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made, and have effect from 17 October until 30 April 2023: in paragraph (2) insert “(d) serious long-term illness or injury”.
It is a pleasure to open this debate on the proposals put forward by the Procedure Committee in its first report of this Session. This is a House matter that the Government have been very happy to facilitate time for so that Members can consider and debate the reforms in that report and associated changes proposed to the Standing Orders. The House has been asked to consider the expansion of the proxy voting scheme to cover long-term illness or serious injury under a pilot scheme lasting from 17 October 2022 to 30 April 2023, with a review to be completed by the Procedure Committee by 17 March 2023.
I think that all Members of the House will agree that Members should no longer hear the words “Could you have your chemo on another day?”, “We will send an ambulance for you so you can vote”, or “Thank you so much for delaying your c-section to vote in this critical debate.”

Greg Knight: On reflection, does my right hon. Friend not think that it might be better to allow a longer period of time to elapse so that a fuller evaluation can take place, before the Procedure Committee is invited to make a further decision?

Penny Mordaunt: We want to get on with these measures. There has been careful consideration from a number of Committees in arriving at them. We want to get cracking with them, but the evaluation will be a matter for the Committee.
In addition, if agreed, this motion will make changes to the existing proxy voting arrangements by removing the bar on participation in proceedings while in possession of a proxy vote; providing equal rights in relation to proxy voting for parental absence for Members who are biological fathers, the partner of a person giving birth or an adoptive parent; and incorporating complications relating to childbirth into the main body of the Standing Order.
Any changes to the system of voting in the House of Commons should always be given careful consideration. I am grateful to the Procedure Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for their work on this issue over recent years.
In February 2018, the House agreed that MPs
“who have had a baby or adopted a child should for a period of time be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy.”
That was followed by the agreement of a pilot scheme in January 2019 that was made permanent in September 2020. Since then, we have taken further important steps to meet the needs of new mothers, fathers and adoptive parents. In January 2021, the House endorsed a Government-proposed Standing Order change to expand the scheme to allow MPs who have had a baby or adopted a child to be entitled, but not required, to cast votes in the House by proxy. That system is currently in place.
Members will remember that the scheme was expanded for reasons of the pandemic for long periods in 2020 to good effect. When the system of proxy voting for baby leave was introduced, the House discussed the scope of the scheme in great detail. It was felt, on balance, that the anonymity of slipping and pairing was preferable for Members who were ill or had caring responsibilities, rather than declaring personal circumstances to qualify for a proxy vote during a difficult time. I understand that some Members will retain that view. That is why I agree with the Procedure Committee that the expansion of the proxy voting scheme should not affect the pairing and nodding-through mechanisms, which will remain available to Members.
Pairing has been, and continues to be, a valuable practice that allows Members to be absent from votes, whether that is as a result of ill health or other reasons. The Whips Offices on both sides of the House work hard to ensure that the system functions as well as possible for individual Members.
Nevertheless, since the earlier conversations about the scope of the scheme, there have been growing calls for expanded proxy voting to include those suffering from serious illness or long-term medical health conditions. That was the overwhelming evidence in the Procedure Committee’s inquiry, and the Government have a great deal of sympathy with Members in that position.
The Government welcome the Procedure Committee’s consideration of the evidence relating to the expansion of the scheme. In establishing a pilot to trial the expansion of the proxy voting scheme, the House would be recognising  the importance of creating a more inclusive culture and working environment in Parliament and continuing the progress made in this area.

Jim Shannon: I hope, as I think we all do, that the pilot scheme will become a reality in its entirety, because society is changing. There is maternal leave and paternal leave, and other businesses understand that special conditions can be in place for people who are disabled. We as the mother of Parliaments—I say that collectively—should also move with modern changes in society and understand that we must have a workplace that endorses all the things that happen to our constituents out there in Strangford and elsewhere.

Penny Mordaunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that many Members of the House gave evidence to the inquiry. This is not about the merits of those individual cases but, clearly, this needs to be trialled and we want to ensure that that is brought forward as swiftly as possible.
It is important that all Members of this House can participate in our votes. Divisions here change people’s lives across the country, so the legitimacy of the system must be above reproach to ensure that we maintain the full confidence of our constituents. Proxy voting meets that test. It has worked well for Members who are new mothers or fathers, allowing them to continue to serve their constituents while dealing with their family obligations. We have confidence that extending its scope under these pilot arrangements will work well.
I do not wish to detain the House for too long. However, the motion proposes one or two other changes that hon. Members will wish to consider carefully. I am grateful to the House authorities for providing an explanatory note ahead of the debate.
I wish briefly to cover one proposed change. The motion removes the requirement that Members be absent from the House to exercise their proxy vote. That follows representations from Members who might wish, for example, to participate in an urgent question or statement for which the suspension of a proxy vote with notice is impossible. The House will note the concerns raised both by the Government and by the Procedure Committee that this measure is likely to be of most benefit to Members who are based relatively close to London, and that it could introduce pressure on Members to participate in proceedings while on leave for parental duties or because of matters of ill health.
As the Committee points out:
“Absence from the Estate serves a dual purpose: it explains why a Member is able to vote by proxy but also affords a degree of protection to Members taking care of very young children.”
Members will be able to make use of proxy votes on a voluntary basis and in the same spirit. It will be entirely voluntary, and it will be for each Member to determine whether they wish to participate in a debate at short notice. I assure Members that, in introducing this change, the Government do not envisage any change to the role of MPs, or how they perform in this place their duty to their constituents. Nevertheless, there may be circumstances in which this change will serve a helpful purpose by enabling Members to participate in proceedings without suspending their proxy. Of course, Members should not attempt to vote in person in those circumstances.
The Government believe that a pilot scheme in which the effect of this expansion is carefully measured is a sensible first step, as it is imperative that the voting process remains robust and transparent and that the personal accountability of each Member’s vote is not lost. The review conducted by the Procedure Committee will be essential in determining whether the changes to the scheme are made permanent.
As Members of this House, we all have a duty to ensure that Parliament is inclusive for all Members and their circumstances, be they parental responsibilities or long-term illness, which the proposed pilot scheme would cover. The Procedure Committee found that the
“overwhelming balance of evidence…was in favour of an extension of proxy voting”
to include those areas. Ultimately, it is for the House to consider whether it thinks it right that the proxy voting system be expanded. For my part, I hope that the House will support the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. I commend the motion to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Leader of the House for moving this important motion. It is disappointing that we had to wait until after the summer recess for this debate; I can only hope that it has inspired her to press ahead with other important matters of House business such as the Members’ code of conduct, which we will be partially debating next Tuesday—but that is for another time.
I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), her Committee and its staff for doing such excellent work in pressing on with the issue and pursuing it so determinedly, and for the sensitive way in which they conducted their inquiries. I have already welcomed the publication of their report, read it carefully and noted its recommendations. The Committee clearly received an
“overwhelming balance of evidence…in favour of proxy voting being extended to include Members suffering from…long-term illness or injury.”
I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that she has my full support in introducing this pilot scheme.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who both gave very personal evidence to the Committee about the difficult challenges that they faced with long-term illness. We all know at least one colleague who, despite being seriously unwell, has wanted to drag themselves in for a vote and carry out their most basic duty as a Member of this House at a time when it may have been unwise to do so.
I wish also to put on record my support for the counter to that. We also know of the really supportive work done by the Whips Offices. I was well supported by my Whip throughout the time that I was having treatment, so I was able to stay away and not have to think about it. That is a very personal choice and I fully recognise that there will be Members with different views and different needs, but I want to make it clear  that I am glad that the option of nodding through and pairing remains, and that this measure is therefore optional.
Parliament ought to be a model workplace at the forefront of rights at work and accessibility. I think that the motion strikes the right balance: it is proportionate and it is welcome.
As the Women and Equalities Committee has recommended, addressing outdated, entrenched, gendered stereotypes about childcare is essential. Members should have the option to take shared leave, and I am glad that today’s motion could resolve that.
I also want to put on record my support for the decoupling of a proxy vote from restrictions on participating in other parliamentary proceedings. The Committee understood and recognised the need for “keeping-in-touch days”, as they may be called. Some Members will want, and feel able to, come in occasionally to make an intervention, but will not necessarily feel able to stay physically for votes or return the next day. I commend the Committee for recognising the benefits of such flexibility. I know that that range of choices will aid recovery and improve wellbeing, as, of course, will “nodding through” and pairing.
I am aware of the concern that has been raised over privacy for Members, which is, perhaps, why I am referring again to “nodding through” and pairing. There will be Members who want to make that choice for that reason. I was reassured to see no proposed changes in the mechanisms that exist as political agreements between Whips Offices, because respect for privacy is important. When they wish to do so, Members should be able to—and, under this proposed arrangement, they can—continue to choose that more discreet option.
I have a few questions for the Leader of the House, and possibly for the Chair of the Procedure Committee as well. Can the Leader of the House tell us what other considerations there have been about maintaining privacy for Members if that is what they wish? Can she, or perhaps the Chair of the Procedure Committee, give us a bit more detail about how the scheme might work in practice? What thresholds have been discussed in relation to the severity of illness or injury that will qualify a Member for a proxy vote?
Has thought been given to the possibility that the pilot may have to be extended if it is not used for the very legitimate possible reason that Members simply do not need it during the six months that we have allocated? I hope that no Members will need it, but they may, and it may be for a happy reason. There may be all sorts of reasons unconnected with illness. If Members do need it because of illness, we will be able to test the parameters of the pilot, but if they do not, I suggest that we will need to extend it. It would be wrong for the scheme to be dismissed because of low take-up, or not to go through some of the complications that may arise if we do not test it in practice.
Given that this is a pilot scheme, may I ask whether the Procedure Committee will have time to assess the way in which it works? Can the Leader of the House update us on her discussions with the Chair of the Procedure Committee about how the pilot will be assessed? What criteria will be used, and will this involve an assessment of Members who proactively do not want to be part of the scheme, but want their considerations to be heard?
This pilot of a very well-considered proposal has come at the right time. In fact, we could all probably say that its time was probably last year or the year before, but I am glad to be here at this point, when we can say that we are taking another step forward towards making our Parliament truly one in which all can serve, regardless of health, disability or childbirth status.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Procedure Committee.

Karen Bradley: Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for finding time for the debate. It is very welcome that time is provided in the House for us to debate these matters properly. A habit had been developing of making such debates “nod or nothing”, which did not give Members an opportunity to have their say about the important matters which govern how we best represent our constituents.
As my right hon. Friend said in her opening remarks, proxy voting is a relatively new procedure for the House. It was initially introduced in 2018, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it was in May 2019 that that the pilot scheme for proxy voting during baby leave was introduced following a report from our predecessor Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). The current Committee, which I now chair, reviewed the pilot scheme and produced a report in September 2020, making the baby leave scheme permanent.
During that process, we were acutely aware of calls to extend proxy voting to other areas, but we wanted to ensure that the review focused on the way in which the proxy scheme worked for those on baby leave—a very “known” event which is very public. People are very aware that their Members of Parliament, or their spouses, are having babies. I think that that has improved this place, and made it a much more welcoming environment for new parents.
At the time we issued our report in September 2020 we were in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, and at that same time the House agreed that proxy voting should be extended for matters of illness or being unable to attend this place due to the coronavirus. At that point, it was a widely used measure. For very good reasons, Members were not expected to be in the Division Lobby. That was absolutely right, because it would not have been a safe place for them. A very difficult process of voting with social distancing was introduced, and it was quite right that proxy votes were available to pretty much anyone who wished to use them by the end of the pandemic. I think there was a point when only about 14 Members had not taken up a proxy vote.
I want to reassure any Members who are concerned that we are going to start down that route again that that is not what this scheme envisages. This will be a much more restrictive scheme which we do not envisage being used by more than a small number of Members at any one time. However, it was clear from all the evidence that we took that, for those Members who need it, the scheme will be the most valuable way to enable them to represent their constituents.
I see that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) is here, and I know she is going to contribute to the debate at some point. Hers was one of the most overwhelming pieces of evidence given to the Committee. She said that representing our constituents and being able to have our votes recorded was an incredibly important part of the democratic process, and that it cannot be right in a modern Parliament that wants to give open access to everybody if Members feel unable to do that or if they feel pressured to put their health in jeopardy in order to come into this place and vote.
I am pleased that the Government have tabled this motion. I want to make a point about confidentiality, because that is something that I am nervous about. I am not going to say that I am not concerned about it. We toyed with this issue on the Committee: how can we ensure that someone going through a deeply personal and private experience can have the confidentiality they need when taking up this scheme? It is clear that we have to ensure that there is transparency to constituents around voting, but that transparency could impact on people’s personal situations.
The first point is that nobody needs to take up the opportunity. If Members do not wish to take a proxy vote, they do not have to do so. I am pleased that pairing will still be available, even though it relies on trust and on the relations between the usual channels working. It is an important part of the way we conduct our business. For any Member who is away for just a short amount of time, pairing is a good way to deal with these matters. We heard evidence that if a Member was unable to attend for a few weeks, their constituents did not notice, but there was strong evidence that after a certain period of time, they did start to notice that their Member was not voting. It is a matter for each of us how we represent our constituents and what we are prepared to say in the public domain, but the evidence we received from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and many others who had gone through or were going through long-term medical conditions was overwhelming: they said that the availability of this option, for those who wished to take it, was incredibly important. So I am pleased that that is going to be the case.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) asked about the consideration given by the Committee to eligibility—I feel like I am answering a statement here. We came to the view that a scheme should be designed to allow the Speaker the final say on the provision of medical evidence for someone needing to take time away from this place in order to get the treatment they need and have the best chance of recovery from whatever their condition may be. It should be noted that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority allows Members of Parliament an additional budget for staff if they are away for three months or more. I would have thought that is a very good example, as three months feels about the right amount of leave needed to qualify for a proxy. Clearly, it will be on a case-by-case basis. We did not want to dictate which conditions qualify and which do not, but we were keen to make sure there is flexibility for Mr Speaker.
The hon. Lady also asked about time for the review, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who is a previous Chair of the  Procedure Committee—I served under him—is right. I am slightly concerned about the timeframe for the review, because I would not want so few Members to take up these proxies that we do not have evidence on which to operate. The Leader of the House is extraordinarily pragmatic and helpful, and I am sure she will work with me if it is felt that the pilot needs to be extended slightly before the Committee reviews it. We will, of course, find time for whatever review is required.
Finally, we deliberately decoupled any parliamentary absence from the baby leave proxy when it was introduced, so that no new parent felt pressured to come to this place. They were allowed to have proper time with their newborn, in the way that all new parents should have, but we learned during coronavirus that there are many occasions when it is important for Members to be able to contribute to debates and then to exercise their vote via proxy, both for keeping in touch and for recovery. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford that being able to come in for a few days at a time, to be able to take part in debates while still receiving treatment, and still to be able to go home and recover, is incredibly important.
I finish by thanking the other members of the Procedure Committee and my fantastic Clerks, who worked incredibly hard on this report. Without them, we would not have had the superb report that is before the House today. I fully support the motion, and I hope the House will agree to it unanimously.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

Deidre Brock: I thank the Leader of the House for moving this motion.
This appears to be one of those rare and happy occasions when agreement breaks out across this place, so I do not propose to speak for very long. I am conscious that many colleagues have been involved in exploring these issues in great detail for some time, and they will want to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief.
I begin by paying tribute to all the Clerks, as the convener of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), mentioned, and all the Members who contributed to this report, through either their work or their evidence. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for her tireless and determined work on this issue, and for her willingness to draw on her own very challenging experiences of serious illness to advocate for these important changes to this place’s voting schemes.
The SNP firmly believes that politics and democracy belong to everyone, and we are committed to Parliaments being as open as possible. The Scottish Parliament is currently conducting an inquiry, launched by Holyrood’s presiding officer, into parliamentary procedures and practices, and we look forward to its results. We welcome the progress made in this motion. It makes politics and Parliament more accessible to everyone, which can only be a good thing.
It was in September 2020 that this House agreed to make permanent arrangements for proxy voting for MPs who are absent from Westminster because of childbirth or caring for an infant or newly adopted child. It is certainly more than time for this to be extended to cover Members with serious long-term illness or injury. The case for extending the scheme was already strong before covid-19, but it is even clearer now, in our post-pandemic society, that as other industries adapt and modernise their work patterns and practices, the time has come for this place to do likewise.
As the Australian academic Dr Sonia Palmieri comments in the report,
“the changing membership of Parliaments and wider changes in society created a drive for greater flexibility in order to create greater productivity and diversity.”
Our Parliaments must reflect that. The overwhelming balance of evidence heard by the Procedure Committee was in favour of an extension of proxy voting to include serious long-term illness or injury. Some Members have touched on how the pairing scheme can work well in the case of short-term illness or injury, such as a bad bout of flu. However, pairing disenfranchises two Members and it is also difficult to explain this somewhat opaque system to constituents. Proxy voting is generally simpler and more democratic, and I have confidence that the protections suggested will protect confidentiality adequately and appropriately. We need to ensure that Members advised by their doctor to take a prolonged period off have better accessibility to still being able to represent their constituents. Pairing will still be available to those who prefer it, and will continue to be available to those with short-term illnesses or injuries.
Constituents should not be disenfranchised because their Member of Parliament has a long-term medical condition, a disability, caring responsibilities for an infant or newly adopted child, or complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss. Furthermore, I was sorry to read that Members taking long-term absences have highlighted the abuse they have received on social media for missing votes through no fault of their own, because there was no system in place to use their vote.
I should state that I also support the Women and Equalities Committee’s call for biological fathers to have an equal opportunity to take advantage of the proxy voting scheme. It is important we do not entrench gendered stereotypes about childcare, and I hope the House will return to this in the future. I also continue to favour the continuation of the electronic voting system introduced during the pandemic. Clearly, it is a step too far at this stage, but I hope that we will be able to come back to it.
I will leave it there, but I commend the progress made towards this pilot. It respects the needs of constituents and Members. As the academic Professor Sarah Childs from the University of Edinburgh noted in her contribution to the Committee’s inquiry, the principle of presenting
“‘role model’ inclusive workplace best practice, setting the standard at home and abroad”
is an important function for any Parliament. There is more to be done on accessibility, as I have mentioned. The UK still ranks very poorly on maternity provision, and I ask the House to note that the Scottish Parliament allows MSPs to take their babies into its debating Chamber, as it is considered essential that parents with babies are able to be fully involved in the business of  Parliament, which includes the Chamber, However, I am sure that is something this House will return to in the future, and I really commend the report and all the work put into it. This is a good day for the House.

James Sunderland: As a proud member of the Procedure Committee, I rise to support the motion and to commend the excellent work that the Chairman does. The Clerks and staff are excellent, and we have seen her contribution and those of all the members in the report.
When I became a Member of Parliament in 2019, I was most intrigued from day one by the comparisons between the institutions in which I had served. As a military man for 27 years, I was proud to serve an organisation that got the job done. It was very efficient and slick. People knew their place and it was very output-focused. Coming to Westminster, I was struck straightaway by just how quirky and unique this place is, with the obsession with standard operating procedures, dogma and process. It has baffled me to this day, three years on, that we are not more efficient here in how we work. Adjusting to what one might call “antiquity” was not necessarily easy for me, which is probably why I joined the Procedure Committee, because I felt as though I could add some value to what we were doing. Today’s motion is a classic example of where we can add some value.
Parliamentarians should, by nature, be considering ways of becoming more relevant, entering the 21st century and bringing Parliament to the fore in terms of modern ways of working. I completely agree with the shadow Leader of the House that this is about modern ways of working to benefit any modern employer. We are and we should be modern employees. We are adults and we are paid to do a job; we serve our constituents. At least give us a say on how we do that business.
When we consider what an MP actually does, we see that the roles and responsibilities are huge. They are vast—we work around the clock, we work really hard and we believe in what we are doing—but if we analyse it and strip it down, the only non-discretionary thing that we have to do is voting. We have to come here and vote on motions and legislation, which is what our constituents expect us to do, so why would we not make that most fundamental priority fit for purpose? Why, as elected Members of Parliament, would we not make it easier for ourselves to do that? Why would we not do what is necessary to help ourselves in that important task?
So in a nutshell, it is absolutely right that we support the motion today and that we consider extending proxy voting. In my view, it is crazy that Members of Parliament—adults who are ill or injured, who are caring for loved ones at home, with the most desperate, compassionate circumstances, or who are similarly indisposed—cannot register a vote without physically being here. Those who were here before 2019 may recall the scenes of one particular Member being wheeled through the voting Lobby in a wheelchair, suffering from a brain tumour. It is absolutely outrageous that we demean ourselves and what we do here by forcing that to happen.
This is also about childbirth and complications arising from childbirth, and about maternity and paternity leave, and there are many other examples of where we could and should extend proxy voting. We did electronic voting during the pandemic, and my word, it worked so effectively, didn’t it? Why would we not be able to exercise a vote by electronic means? I understand why that is not with us now and why it is necessary to be here in person, and I am a great fan of that, but it was so easy to vote in 2020 using our phones, so why should it not be as easy for us all to vote in the same way or via alternative means if there is a legitimate reason why we cannot physically be here?
So should we remove the bar to participation in proceedings while in possession of a proxy vote? Yes. Should we incorporate
“complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”
into the body of the Standing Order? Yes. And should we temporarily allow Members experiencing long-term illness or injury to use a proxy vote? Absolutely, yes. This is what the military might call a no-brainer: it has to happen. Of course, as we heard earlier from the Chair, the devil is in the detail, and there will be work to define the exact qualifying criteria for a proxy vote. That will come from the pilot and through trial and error, but there is no question but that this is the right thing to do.
Finally, I commend to the House the work of the Procedure Committee more widely. It is an often forgotten Committee, but one that had real utility during the pandemic, in ensuring that we could continue working in that awful, difficult circumstance. Of course, we must challenge dogma and orthodoxy. We are not here to stand still as parliamentarians. We are here to force the agenda, move forward and make sure that this place is fit for purpose. Parliament must be relevant. I therefore look forward to many more such motions as we go forward.

Amy Callaghan: I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this motion forward today.
“I’m not broken; Westminster is.”
I first uttered those words nine months ago, having launched a campaign to introduce the very measures that we are debating. They are measures to benefit our constituents, because let us be clear: they are the ones disadvantaged when their Member of Parliament cannot vote on their behalf. I must say that seeing three Leaders of the House over the duration of my campaign and the Procedure Committee’s inquiry really gave my campaign slogan a bit more credibility than I was initially hoping for. This place is broken; this place is exclusive; this place must enact more reforms. But today we can start to change that. Today, almost exactly two years since I walked out the door of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, we are starting to make this place just a bit more progressive. We can make this small but mighty change that will see no constituent disenfranchised due to the ill health of an elected Member.
I did not choose to fall ill; no one does. I did not choose four months of hospital stay and life-saving surgery, and I did not choose to live my life with a disability. It has been a hell of a long journey back to this place, but I would do it all again, because representing  the people of East Dunbartonshire is an absolute privilege. It should not have to be this difficult. At a time when I needed my workplace to show compassion and understanding, the procedures were not there. This place legislates for equality but could not provide it for its own elected Members.
But this is not about me. If this is the struggle that I and many others across this House have faced, I shudder to think what rogue employers are doing to our constituents the length and breadth of these four nations; to people who just need some understanding and time as they recover from ill health. This place sets the tone for a society that enables those who are fully able and further restricts the vulnerable. Let us change that today.
This place can be so much more. Irrespective of politics and the constitution, this place should be a force for good. This place should act with courtesy, respect, equality and inclusivity—hallmarks of how we want our society to function, from the Commons to our communities. It is our communities that look to us to provide. We are servants of the public. Our constituents—the people of East Dunbartonshire—should look to this place for examples of good practice. Their voices should never be silenced.
Voting by proxy, promoting inclusivity and providing adjustments for those with a disability gives every workplace across these four nations the standard to strive towards. I am particularly grateful that, under this scheme, proxy voting does not hinder participation. I discussed this in my evidence to the Committee and also read it from others. This is what a phased return to work should look like and this will be a shining example to people across our constituencies.
The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), gave me his time and let me nip his ear off on numerous occasions about this issue, and for that I am incredibly grateful. I also welcome the new Leader of the House to her role and wish her well. The issue of proxy voting has always been about people, not politics, and I would be very happy to meet her to talk about my experiences and how we can make this place better for future generations. My deep thanks go to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). Lastly, I give heartfelt thanks to Mr Speaker for his unwavering support. He was generous with his time and advice and he gave me reassurance that the House was taking this issue seriously and that we absolutely had to get it right.
It is not lost on me that I have pushed boundaries and made some people feel uncomfortable, but I make no apologies for that. Disability, accessibility and making this place more inclusive sometimes means having awkward conversations. I hope that, after this debate, I feel proud and reassured that the next Amy Callaghan—am I allowed to say that?—will not have this battle on their hands. Let us make this a start: the start of a process of change where this place can become a beacon of light, shining by way of promoting equality for people right across our communities, and becoming the example of an inclusive Parliament.
When I walk out of the Chamber for the last time, I hope to do so proudly, leaving this place in a better state than when I joined it. With everyone’s help today,  we can begin that process. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not broken, and today Westminster might just get a wee bit better.

Patrick Grady: I think that there is only one Amy Callaghan, and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire has just proven that with one of the most eloquent speeches that many of us will have heard in this House. I congratulate her immensely on everything that she has achieved.
I think the hon. Member alluded to the point that, if we started from scratch, we would not invent the current system for voting in Divisions in this House. Crowding into Lobbies to queue up for an individual headcount is a colossal waste of time and resources.
The card reader system has marginally improved things, but we still waste hours, if not days, each year simply queuing up to vote. Anything that improves the experience and accessibility of voting in Divisions, however marginal, is to be welcomed.
During the pandemic, the then Leader of the House—now, quite remarkably, the Business Secretary—made great play of the historic and
“absolute, unequivocal constitutional right of Members to attend Parliament”,—[Official Report, 16 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 1172.]
which, he repeatedly reminded us, dates back to at least 1340. Of course he was correct: we are privileged to have an absolute right to attend Parliament.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) that, ultimately, the purpose of attending is first and foremost to vote. We have an absolute right to vote in this House, but we do not have an absolute right to speak. We can do our best to get on the Order Paper or to catch the Speaker’s eye, but there is rarely, if ever, an absolute guarantee of being called to speak, so ultimately it is through voting that we can be certain of exercising our mandates to represent our constituents.
However, there are times when attending Parliament is difficult, if not impossible. The House eventually recognised that, with a system of proxy votes for baby leave. Even in a few short years, that experience has been overwhelmingly positive and has evolved and developed. Anyone who would suggest rolling it back would find very little appetite at all for doing so.
Extending proxy votes to Members in other unavoidable situations that make attendance difficult is the natural next step. The Procedure Committee heard many important personal examples, and we have just heard one, incredibly powerfully, on the Floor of the Chamber. The broad consensus for today’s motion is to be welcomed, as is everything in the Procedure Committee’s report. I echo other Members of the Committee in thanking the Clerks for their outstanding work, as always, in assisting with its production.
Having served on the Committee from 2015 to 2017, it has been a fascinating experience to return to it in this Parliament. I agree with the Chair that perhaps there will be a little flexibility to let the pilot scheme breathe, given the delays in getting this motion to the Floor of the House in the first place, but I slightly disagree with her when I say that, in reviewing the operation of the scheme, I hope we can consider whether there is room to go further or do things a little bit differently.
The “proxies for all” system that existed during the pandemic operated incredibly successfully and removed any question of what the reason was, what the qualifications were or why people had to be absent at any given time. It also remained voluntary throughout the pandemic. Members did not have to sign up for a proxy vote; they could attend if they wanted to, or make an arrangement for pairing, or to have a slip or to be nodded through, using the other mechanisms that exist.
It is worth exploring how the system might evolve, and that includes looking again at remote voting, because it worked extremely well and ultimately that is where the future of a modern, 21st-century Parliament should lie.

Peter Grant: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise and puzzlement that most people are not allowed to have a vote counted if they do not physically go through the Lobby, but there is absolutely no requirement on us to have listened to a single word of the debate? We do not need to know what it is we are voting on, as long as we turn up. Does he understand why my constituents, and possibly his, think that that in itself is something strange?

Patrick Grady: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. The Chamber is maybe not quite as full as it ought to be for a debate of this importance, but I am sure that other hon. Members, wherever they might be, are following our proceedings live—as no doubt are the many thousands of people tuning in to the live stream and to BBC coverage and so on. There are a lot of different ways now to engage with parliamentary proceedings, both for members of the public and for those of us who, for whatever length of time, are Members of Parliament.
We only have to look at the Scottish Parliament to see how, when it was first set up 20 years ago, it went out of its way to become that kind of modern exemplar, adopting fixed decision times and electronic voting. Similar systems are in place in devolved legislatures and, indeed, local council chambers across these islands. In Holyrood they have continued to use remote voting since the pandemic, which is of huge assistance to Members of the Scottish Parliament who have remote constituencies, caring responsibilities or other kinds of accessibility requirements.
If Parliament—any Parliament, including the future independent Parliament of Scotland—is to be inclusive and truly representative of our modern and diverse society, then participation for its elected Members must be as straightforward and as intelligible to the outside observer as possible. Proxy voting means that Members are not forced into an opaque pairing system or the nonsense of nodding through, which is essentially a proxy voting system but means that Members—I have experienced this as I have had to nod people through in the past—have to stay somewhere else on the estate but are excused from having to go through the Lobbies. That does not help people who have difficult conditions for which they should really be at home recuperating and regaining their strength. The extension of the scheme will allow constituents to be represented even when a Member is indisposed through no fault of their own.

Karen Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Grady: I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Procedure Committee.

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a valuable member of the Committee. I want to reassure him that many people who are not here are watching the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who is availing herself of the proxy vote for baby leave, has just texted me to say how pleased she is that the debate is happening and how much she wants the extension to go through, so there are Members observing who might not be in the Chamber.

Patrick Grady: I entirely agree. That exactly proves the point. Many Members are in their offices right now catching up on their constituency correspondence, but they will have the Chamber feed on and will be watching the debate out of the corner of their eye, if only just to find out when the Government will drop the Whip so they can all go home. That is exactly the point: we engage differently now. It does none of us a service when people see pictures of a full Commons talking about one thing and an empty Commons talking about another. That is not representative of how this job works. This point has already been made, but if we want people from more diverse communities, with broader life experience, and who want to raise a broader range of issues, we have to make the job as accessible as possible. That is what I think is happening today.
At this rate, we might manage to drag this House into the 21st century sometime around the start of the 22nd, but by then Scotland will be blazing its own trail as an independent country and, for us, Westminster will be merely a quaint historical curiosity.

Margaret Ferrier: I commend the work of the Procedure Committee, its Chair—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—and its Clerks. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for sharing her experience in such a powerful way.
I support the motion and think that the changes are a positive step towards increased flexibility that will benefit constituents in the long run. Of course, it is important that the proposed amendments to Standing Order No. 39A are narrow enough that Members should attend when capable. In a parliamentary democracy, the communities that Members are elected to represent should feel confident in the knowledge that their MP will be present and will show up for the job that they have put us here to do.
I welcome the change to give proxy votes to those who are kept away from business as a result of serious long-term illness or injury. It is crucial that our constituents’ voices continue to be heard and represented in this place through our votes, even when something beyond an individual’s control has prevented them from attending. We are all human, and we are all susceptible to illness or injury.
The Committee’s report, in reflecting the evidence given by colleagues, considered nuanced points about the current pairing system, the anonymity ensuring that absent Members do not need to publish personal or private medical information, and the perception of the public when they see that Members have missed numerous votes over an extended period—that is where a recorded proxy vote is key. Some, though, still believe that pairing through the Whips is the way we should continue.
In the case of Members who sit on these Benches as independents without party affiliation, that does not work, because the number of independents is consistently low in comparison. That position is very often overlooked in terms of how it might impact on our ability to do the job effectively. There is no option of pairing for independents, but we are no less concerned that our constituents should have adequate representation in this place.
Before I conclude, I have two questions for the Leader of the House. Generally, doctors will provide a fit note for employees who are absent from work for seven days or more. If a fit note is the criteria that will be used to determine a Member’s eligibility for a proxy vote, will the same timescales apply so that a proxy vote could be granted when the Member cannot attend from seven days of illness onwards? There are situations where a Member may, for example, unexpectedly be admitted to hospital, but whether or not their condition will be limiting for the long term may not be immediately clear and they miss out on votes again.
Under the proposed amendment, the pilot scheme would need to be reviewed by 17 March 2023. Serious long-term illness or injury cannot be easily planned for and I wonder how the scheme could be assessed if eligible cases were very low between now and March. Will the Leader of the House share any criteria that would be used to inform a decision on that, and if numbers were too low to decide, could the pilot be extended?
The House is a unique and sometimes antiquated place of work that comes with a great sense of privilege, but it is right that we modernise where we can and where it would be advantageous. As long as a medical professional has deemed a Member unfit to attend, they should be given the space to recuperate without the pressure of feeling that their constituents have no voice.

Craig Whittaker: I shall be brief. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I thank the Procedure Committee for its helpful report and recommendations. I also thank the Women and Equalities Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for their recommendations, which have really enhanced the other Committee’s report.
As was set out at the start of the debate, the Government welcome the step of implementing the pilot scheme, which will offer greater assistance to Members with serious long-term illness or injury. I am grateful to the Committee for indicating that it will review this change to the scheme, and I think it is important that the pilot should be implemented permanently only if the Committee can reassure the House that it has worked well.
I welcome the thoughtful debate that we have had today. It was wonderful to see and hear the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) here today and have her endorsement that we are finally starting to take disability and accessibility for Members seriously in this place. I know how hard she has campaigned, over a very long period, for these changes and I must say huge congratulations to her on a personal level as well.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, asked three questions. The first was around maintaining the confidentiality of the individual Member. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said, although proxy voting is designed to be a transparent and open process for constituents, we do have the nodding through and pairing process from our superb and excellent Whips’ Offices, which ensures discretion if preferred by the Member; and of course the Procedure Committee will consider confidentiality when it assesses the pilot scheme.
The hon. Member for Bristol West also asked about the threshold of injury or illness. That ties in with a question asked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). This is a highly pragmatic scheme, for which the Speaker will have discretion. Mr Speaker will also publish updated guidance to the scheme in due course. I hope that answers that question.
Finally, the hon. Member for Bristol West asked about the assessment process for the pilot. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said that the process used during the pilot conducted in 2019—assessment by those who actually used the scheme—would be applied here too. If more time is needed because of lack of use of the scheme, it will be for the House to decide whether to allow more time for that pilot scheme. I think that covers most of the questions that were asked.

Karen Bradley: It is wonderful to see my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. Could I ask for his commitment that the Government will facilitate that vote to allow the pilot scheme to be carried forward, and allow the House to make that decision?

Craig Whittaker: The straightforward and right answer to that is yes. We will make sure that gets facilitated.
There is much more we can consider when looking at how we adapt some of our proceedings in the House to make them fit for the 21st century and—as the wonderful hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said—make it a more modern environment for Members, as well as those who are not Members who come into this place. There is no question in my mind but that we need to continue to make progress, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect carefully on the points made in today’s debate. I hope Members will support the motion, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That:
(1) this House
(a) believes that Members experiencing serious long-term illness or injury should be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy, under a pilot scheme issued by the Speaker and reviewed by the Procedure Committee;
(b) directs the Speaker to amend the scheme governing the operation of proxy voting in accordance with paragraphs 1-40 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 383, on Proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall; and
(c) directs the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the temporary amendment to Standing Order  No. 39A no later than 17 March 2023.
Ordered,
That,
(2) the following amendments to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made:
(a) in paragraph 2, delete “absence from the precincts of the House for”;
(b) in paragraph 2, delete “childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child” and insert—
“(a) childbirth;
(b) care of an infant or newly adopted child; and
(c) complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”; and
(c) delete paragraph 7.
Ordered,
That,
(3) the following amendment to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made, and have effect from 17 October until 30 April 2023: in paragraph (2) insert
“(d) serious long-term illness or injury”.

Business without Debate

Business of the House

Ordered,
That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Energy Prices Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Stuart Anderson.)

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the draft Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.

Sanctions

That the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 818), dated 14 July 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 July, be approved.

Financial Services

That the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 782), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 July, be approved.—(Stuart Anderson.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - DWP services at Phoenix House in Barrow

Simon Fell: I rise to present a petition recognising the importance of the work of the Department for Work and Pensions team   based in Phoenix House in Barrow and Furness. The staff there are specialists in industrial injury and disablement benefits. They act with speed and compassion, and hundreds of constituents, individuals and representative groups have called on the DWP to reverse its decision to close that office in pursuit of efficiencies. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the Department of Work and Pensions services currently housed at Phoenix House in Barrow are not withdrawn.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Barrow and Furness,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) services currently housed at Phoenix House in Barrow should not be withdrawn; further that the team at Phoenix House provide a specialist and essential service with industrial injury and disablement benefits; and further that the local community wants the Phoenix House team to remain in Barrow.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the Department of Work and Pensions services currently housed at Phoenix House in Barrow are not withdrawn.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002772]

Petition - Cost of Living

Beth Winter: I rise to present a petition, alongside a corresponding online petition, signed by over 1,200 Cynon Valley residents. The petition sets out measures that residents wish enacted to alleviate the cost of living crisis. The petitioners request that the House of Commons
“urge the Government to hold consultations, ahead of the Autumn Budget, on fairer funding for Wales, inflation-proofed increases in pay, pensions and social security, controls on prices in essential household goods, increased taxation of wealth, increased emergency payments to households funded by a windfall tax, and a programme of mass home insulation.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Cynon Valley,
Declares that the economic hardship created by the cost-of-living crisis is incredibly concerning.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold consultations, ahead of the Autumn Budget, on fairer funding for Wales, inflation-proofed increases in pay, pensions and social security, controls on prices in essential household goods, increased taxation of wealth, increased emergency payments to households funded by a windfall tax, and a programme of mass home insulation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002773]

Hedge End Train Station: Accessibility

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stuart Anderson.)

Paul Holmes: From a debate about accessibility in our Parliament, we move to a debate that I am pleased to have secured about an issue that has been a long-standing concern for my constituents living in Hedge End, Botley, West End and Fair Oak: the lack of accessibility at Hedge End train station. I rise two years after having first outlined the issue in an Adjournment debate in October 2020, with the problems I will revisit not having been resolved, and the factors exacerbating those accessibility issues getting worse.
I place on the record my congratulations to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and welcome him to his place. I had the privilege of working very closely with him as his Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Home Office, and I know that his attitude at that Department will be borne out in his new Department. I say to him gently that with great responsibility comes great expectation, and he should know that there is great expectation in Hedge End and from the hon. Member for Eastleigh. We look forward to his summing up of this debate.
There is at this time a concerning gap in accessibility in provision in the region where my constituency is based. For example, I was concerned to learn that only 43% of stations in Hampshire have step-free access—among the lowest count among the counties of the UK. In addition, only 24% have an accessible ticket office and 32% have national key toilets. However, before I lay out the case for Hedge End and the need to improve station accessibility there, I want to address the context of this debate and provide the Minister with some of the details of the situation in my constituency.

Stephen Hammond: Just before my hon. Friend lays out the context of the debate, he talked about the trains that go to Hedge End. Can I tell him that the most used station on that line is Raynes Park, and I have been campaigning for the last five years to get step-free access and accessibility there? It is the most used station, so the points he is making about Hedge End and Hampshire apply across the region, and I hope the Minister in his summing up will talk a bit about the new fund that might be available at some stage for these great schemes.

Paul Holmes: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. I will let the House into a secret. I was his parliamentary researcher, so I hold some of the responsibility for not managing to get that station in Raynes Park its accessibility grants, but he is a tireless campaigner for his constituency. In Eastleigh and at Hedge End, we obviously have some work to do to get the amount of people he has at Raynes Park, but he outlines a point that is very important and very similar to that in my constituency. I know Raynes Park station very well, having been around with him in his constituency. People have a choice there: they can get a taxi to Wimbledon if they cannot make the footbridge, or make the journey across the footbridge at Raynes Park. He has not been campaigning for this for  five years—I started working for him in 2011 and I know that it was an issue he brought up then. I know that he will continue to do that and I hope the Minister will outline in his response some good news for Wimbledon as well as for Hedge End and Eastleigh.
Going back to the case in Eastleigh, I am proud that the Eastleigh constituency is a thriving community. I have noted previously that the population in my patch has grown by 15% in the last 20 years, a clear sign that Eastleigh acts as a magnet for families and individuals seeking a great place to live. This has of course led to a corresponding, but in my view reckless increase in house building by the Liberal Democrat council, Eastleigh Borough Council, particularly in Hedge End, which I also regret has not been met with an increase in investment in suitable infrastructure locally to guide development in a reasonable and responsible manner.
The problem continues with speculative housing developments and large-scale developments being built in the borough, which historically has been caused by the failure of that local council to develop a local plan. The volume of new housing in Hedge End has been substantial. Between 2001 and 2011, new homes delivered at Dowd’s Farm, a major strategic development in Hedge End North, increased the population in that borough council ward by 33.6%; that was in 10 years. Between 2011 and now, major new housing developments have delivered a further 450 new homes, with more housing delivered not only as part of Dowd’s Farm, but at Kings Copse Road and St John’s Road. But that is just the start of it.
Eastleigh Borough Council has either granted planning permission or allocated space for a further 738 new homes to be built in Hedge End in the next 10 years. Most damagingly, a new council-built development of 2,500 homes in the village of Fair Oak and Horton Heath will mean that infrastructure will be under immense strain, with no substantive contributions to the improvement of Hedge End station just down the road. In simple terms, families are moving into the area, but are being forced to use roads, not rail, to go about their journeys. Anyone with a disability, children or the elderly, when returning from London to my constituency at Hedge End, has to alight at Eastleigh or Southampton Airport Parkway station, 6.4 miles away from Hedge End, which is now the second largest settlement within my constituency of Eastleigh.
Towns and villages such as Hedge End, Botley, Bursledon and Hamble are served by small stations that lack the facilities required to serve growing settlements. Many of my constituents choose to live in Hedge End because of the railway connections to London, the great sense of community and excellent local schools. That explains why Hedge End station is well used, with more than 522,000 entries and exits before the pandemic. That was up from 506,000 in 2017. However, for some people in my constituency entering the station is not as easy as exiting it, and I hope that the Minister can assist with that. Parents with disabled children, disabled adults and parents with pushchairs or prams cannot use Hedge End station to travel, because there are no lifts or wheelchair or pushchair-accessible facilities at the station. Travellers and commuters with mobility issues are left, as I have mentioned, in the unacceptable situation of being able to take the train to London from Hedge End—a journey of about 70 miles—but being forced to  alight at Southampton Airport, Eastleigh, Fareham or other stations towards Portsmouth on their return journey. At Hedge End station, there is an even worse situation, as the car park is on the side of the station adjacent to the line that goes to London. Anyone returning from London cannot get to their car easily—they may have to take a taxi or make a long walk to get to the other side of the station. That is not suitable for people with disabilities.
The small sum of money required to upgrade the station would mean that pressure points at Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh would be reduced, giving better access for communities in the southern half of my constituency while relieving the burden on the pressured road network. Journeys from Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh, which are the closest stations to Hedge End and over 6 miles away by car or taxi, naturally incur additional costs and inconvenience. The lack of access to the station means that people in the southern half of my constituency are forced to travel to Southampton Airport parkway, which is used annually by 1.7 million passengers, or to Eastleigh, which is used annually by 1.6 million passengers. They can only access those stations by driving through the towns of Fair Oak, Horton Heath or Bishopstoke, or by driving down the M27. With the extension of the runway at Southampton airport, which I completely support, those two stations will only become busier, becoming pinch points in that section of the network.
That creates another problem. Our towns and villages, such as Eastleigh, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, are struggling with a lack of investment in road infrastructure caused by housing overdevelopment. That means that the roads around Eastleigh and Southampton airport station are often blocked in the rush hour and are inaccessible. There is a wider point, in that the Government quite rightly—I completely support them—argue that we need greener and more sustainable forms of travel. I agree, but the current facilities at Hedge End station do not facilitate that, and in many respects actively discourage it. That is, of course, bad for passengers, bad for the environment and bad for our local transport networks.
If the Minister cannot respond tonight on funding provision, I urge him to return to the Department and look at a wholesale review of the funding processes for accessibility to local train stations. There is a bid in at the moment from South Western Railway to secure accessibility funding for Hedge End, but the periodic nature of the funding process and the lack of clarity from central Government on the process for applications mean that we need to look at a wholesale review of the British rail network across all four countries in the UK to see whether the Government can do more to alleviate some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and I have outlined.
The Minister will know that levelling up is not just about solving a geographical problem between north and south. It is about equal opportunity and better outcomes for those who are disadvantaged. Quite frankly, in this context, that is not happening in my constituency when it comes to travel. I firmly believe that with the installation of either a lift or wheelchair-accessible facilities at Hedge End station, we can achieve exactly the sort of results that are at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We can give disabled people the opportunity to travel for work and enjoyment, and we can make life better for  families and parents with young children. We can improve our environment by getting more cars off the road—something that my constituents want to do, but which they cannot because of the type of development that has taken place and the lack of accessibility at Hedge End and stations further on, such as the one at Botley in the southern half of my constituency. We can make sustainable travel alternatives a sensible, viable option for my constituents and the wider community.
Now is the time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and finally deliver infrastructure improvements that my constituents are desperately seeking and which they quite rightly expect. Given the excessive development and a growing population, the disabled, the ageing and the parents in my constituency need to have this sorted, and they need to have it sorted very quickly.

Kevin Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate on rail accessibility at Hedge End station in his constituency. This might be my first trip to the Dispatch Box as Rail Minister, but I know that it is far from the first time that the issue has been raised on the Floor of the House. Thanks to his determined campaigning efforts, this is, I think, the second such debate since his election in 2019. The debate is a good opportunity not only to reply to his points about Hedge End but to set out the Government’s continued work to make our rail network more accessible for all passengers.
Transport is at the heart of how we go about our daily lives. It gets us to work and places of education, allows us to run our businesses efficiently and enables us to build connections with people all over the country. More than 14 million people in Great Britain identify as having a disability, and even more people will find that they have struggled to access a railway station due to a mobility issue. The Government recognise how inaccessible transport is a barrier to unlocking their potential, as my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) outlined. However, while our railway’s heritage is magnificent, it means that many stations date from a time when the needs of disabled customers were simply not considered, and the infrastructure available reflects that.
While we estimate that 75% of rail journeys are made through step-free stations, we recognise that only about a fifth of all stations have full step-free accessible routes into the station and, crucially, between each platform. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh highlighted this with Hedge End, and I can think of a station in my constituency where access to one platform can be achieved only via two flights of steps. For some, that situation at their local station is the barrier preventing them from using rail at all, and that is fundamentally unfair.
Making rail fully accessible for all—whether for a person with a disability or, for that matter, for a person struggling with a heavy pushchair or a suitcase—is of great importance to the Government. The inclusive transport strategy published in 2018 set out our ambition for all disabled people to have equal access to transport by 2030. Where physical infrastructure remains a barrier, assistance may also play a role in making access equal.  Good progress is being made on the commitments set out in the strategy. In 2021, we published the plan for rail, which set out how the railway specifically must evolve to meet the needs of its customers. As part of the plan, the Government announced the development of a national rail accessibility strategy: a step change in rail network accessibility for disabled passengers and those with accessibility needs.
The plan also committed to a comprehensive accessibility audit of rail network facilities to provide us with a complete understanding of what stations in Great Britain look like today and to set us in the direction of change. The benefits of that are twofold. The data generated will be made publicly available, enabling passengers to plan their journeys better. It will also equip the Government and the rail industry to better target future investments to bring stations into the 21st century. The audit is progressing well, with more than 85% of Great British mainline stations already audited and the remainder to be completed by spring 2023. That will give us a really complete picture of what accessibility looks like at each station beyond whether it is step-free.
The Government will continue to push the rail industry to comply with its legal obligations to meet current accessibility standards. The Department also requires train operating companies to set out in their accessible travel policy how passengers can book assistance or alternative accessible transport in advance where accessible infrastructure is not yet available. The passenger assistance programme is in place to make accessible journeys easier, providing support to disabled passengers in planning their journeys with confidence and in safety.
I am very aware that accepting and adapting to current accessibility infrastructure is not enough. We must invest in transforming our rail infrastructure to ensure that it meets accessibility needs for years to come. The Access for All programme does just that. Since launching in 2006, the programme has provided step-free accessible routes at more than 200 stations, including at Southampton Parkway in 2010. It has also provided about 1,500 smaller-scale improvements such as accessible toilets and improved customer information systems—all things that make it easier for someone to make their journey.
The inclusive transport strategy extended the programme to 2024, providing nearly £400 million of additional funding. That will deliver accessible routes at more than 100 additional stations, with 24 already completed since 2019. To accelerate delivery of further step-free accessible routes, we recently closed nominations for stations during the next railway funding period, which begins in 2024. Any station in Great Britain without full step-free access was a potential candidate. I am pleased to say that more  than 300 stations were nominated and to confirm that Hedge End was one of those stations. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh for endorsing the nomination. I suspect that another nomination might also have come in from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. The Department will now assess the nominations with Network Rail, using the same criteria as for previous tranches.
All inaccessible stations deserve funding—we want a network that is accessible for all—but it is essential that the Government allocate Access for All funding fairly, with consideration of a wide range of criteria. The selection process takes into account annual footfall, the incidence of disability in the area and, sometimes, proximity to particular facilities that those with mobility issues might need to access, such as a local hospital. It also considers the availability of third-party funding and the operational views of the rail industry. We will look to continue to ensure a fair geographical spread of projects across the country. I expect to be able to make an announcement on shortlisted stations next year.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh for securing this debate on rail accessibility at Hedge End station. In responding, I wanted to demonstrate the work that the Government are doing to improve rail accessibility, despite the limitations historic buildings and infrastructure place on us. We are improving our knowledge of the accessibility picture on our rail network through the stations accessibility audit. We are setting out our plans for improvements in the upcoming national rail accessibility strategy along with delivering infrastructure improvements through successful programmes such as Access for All.
I am committed to improving rail accessibility for all passengers, so I am grateful for the representations made today by my hon. Friends. They strengthen the case for the work we are doing. I know that my hon. Friends are both constant and active advocates for the needs of their constituents and I know that if there is not a commitment forthcoming in the future this will almost certainly not be the last time we discuss step-free access at Hedge End station on the Floor of the House. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh will realise why it would not be right for me to give him a firm commitment today ahead of the wider announcements on the Access for All scheme, not least given the wider interest among many Members from both sides of the House who have supported and promoted schemes, but I know he will be on my case until he gets what he wants for his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.